Mark Jackson will make Curry a better PG/Floor general.
FALSE.
the assistant coaches might, but i don't see curry's ceiling as high as the consensus.
Where do u see his ceiling?
I can see 18+ 8 assists per in the future.
I would pair him w/ a ball handling Big 2(Iggy) or Point Forward so he can get some shots off ball.
i see him at 15/7-8 and getting blown up by bigger or more athletic guards for the rest of his career. i also see him missing 8-10 games per season with ankle injuries.
like i said, he's a great shooter, but if his +/- stays in the negative as the starting pg he's a liability.
sure, ellis isn't the defensive answer, but he's got more size to guard bigger, more athletic pg's and can get a shot in the paint at-will. curry will never be able to do that as efficiently.
Mark Jackson will make Curry a better PG/Floor general.
FALSE.
the assistant coaches might, but i don't see curry's ceiling as high as the consensus.
Where do u see his ceiling?
I can see 18+ 8 assists per in the future.
I would pair him w/ a ball handling Big 2(Iggy) or Point Forward so he can get some shots off ball.
i see him at 15/7-8 and getting blown up by bigger or more athletic guards for the rest of his career. i also see him missing 8-10 games per season with ankle injuries.
like i said, he's a great shooter, but if his +/- stays in the negative as the starting pg he's a liability.
sure, ellis isn't the defensive answer, but he's got more size to guard bigger, more athletic pg's and can get a shot in the paint at-will. curry will never be able to do that as efficiently.
damned if u do damned if you dont
Curry is already scraping near 19 points per. U think he'll decline in the next 5 years?
you're the only one getting it here.
everyone's quick to jump on the trade monta bandwagon, but nobody seriously thinks about what they're getting in return. you get more value with curry as teams are looking to shed payroll in the short term. with monta and his bloated contract, you get the same thing in return: overpaid shooter-- and one without monta's numbers.
if monta goes, the warriors will not only be worried about defense, but they'll be struggling to put up numbers.
Then why don't they struggle to put up numbers now when Ellis's overrated ass is not on the floor?
One more time:
"The most damning stat, however, is how much better the team played without him. Golden State outscored its opponents quite comfortably as long as Ellis wasn't around, and finished a whopping 11.4 points per 100 possessions better without Ellis -- giving him the single worst differential in basketball."
People who follow losing teams for too long develop affections for losing machines like Ellis. If he's the best player on your team you've got NO SHOT at being good. The Warriors should dump him for a role player with some defensive skills and move on.
I have watched almost every single warriors game since the late 1980s and Ellis is NOT a point guard.
The warriors need to get bigger and more defensive. Trading Ellis will hopefully help in both departments. Being able to score is not what they need to work on. Being an offensive team has not helped them at all.
They just had an article about ellis' defense based upon a statistical breakdown of last season. Ellis was one of the best defenders in the NBA on pick and roll defense and one of the worst defenders at one on one. According to the article all you have to do to Ellis is face him up and do do a change direction/crossover dribble and you can go right by him almost everytime.
I'm glad there is a lockout. I hope they contract some of the teams. Hunh! I've been bitter since The Sonics were stolen and think the NBA needs a shakeup (if you could not tell)
The Dallas run was really great to watch though
I'm glad there is a lockout. I hope they contract some of the teams. Hunh! I've been bitter since The Sonics were stolen and think the NBA needs a shakeup (if you could not tell)
The Dallas run was really great to watch though
Why does the NBA need a shakeup?
The Finals ratings were high as hell.
Durant,Rose, and other upcoming stars were featured in the playoffs.
you're the only one getting it here.
everyone's quick to jump on the trade monta bandwagon, but nobody seriously thinks about what they're getting in return. you get more value with curry as teams are looking to shed payroll in the short term. with monta and his bloated contract, you get the same thing in return: overpaid shooter-- and one without monta's numbers.
if monta goes, the warriors will not only be worried about defense, but they'll be struggling to put up numbers.
Then why don't they struggle to put up numbers now when Ellis's overrated ass is not on the floor?
One more time:
"The most damning stat, however, is how much better the team played without him. Golden State outscored its opponents quite comfortably as long as Ellis wasn't around, and finished a whopping 11.4 points per 100 possessions better without Ellis -- giving him the single worst differential in basketball."
People who follow losing teams for too long develop affections for losing machines like Ellis. If he's the best player on your team you've got NO SHOT at being good. The Warriors should dump him for a role player with some defensive skills and move on.
same shit can be said about most players on the warriors when the stat is looking at differentials. they lost a ton of games...
the warriors were way worse (statistically, as a team) at rebounding last season with lee on the floor. isn't dude supposed to be super rebounder? i don't hear anyone demanding that lee get shopped. (this may, however, be because they literally can't trade him. they signed him to a terrible contract.)
all of these adjusted stats look terrible when the ENTIRE TEAM is bad. if you lose a lot of games, scoring differentials will always be negative. if you play most of those losing game minutes, (around 42mpg) your differentials will look worse.
ellis is a better player than curry-- especially offensively-- the one area that the w's were good at. he carried the load in that category.
the warriors can get more in return for trading curry. this shit should be a no-brainer.
and way to psycho-analyze it at the end there, braintrust.
you're the only one getting it here.
everyone's quick to jump on the trade monta bandwagon, but nobody seriously thinks about what they're getting in return. you get more value with curry as teams are looking to shed payroll in the short term. with monta and his bloated contract, you get the same thing in return: overpaid shooter-- and one without monta's numbers.
if monta goes, the warriors will not only be worried about defense, but they'll be struggling to put up numbers.
Then why don't they struggle to put up numbers now when Ellis's overrated ass is not on the floor?
One more time:
"The most damning stat, however, is how much better the team played without him. Golden State outscored its opponents quite comfortably as long as Ellis wasn't around, and finished a whopping 11.4 points per 100 possessions better without Ellis -- giving him the single worst differential in basketball."
People who follow losing teams for too long develop affections for losing machines like Ellis. If he's the best player on your team you've got NO SHOT at being good. The Warriors should dump him for a role player with some defensive skills and move on.
same shit can be said about most players on the warriors when the stat is looking at differentials. they lost a ton of games...
the warriors were way worse (statistically, as a team) at rebounding last season with lee on the floor. isn't dude supposed to be super rebounder? i don't hear anyone demanding that lee get shopped. (this may, however, be because they literally can't trade him. they signed him to a terrible contract.)
all of these adjusted stats look terrible when the ENTIRE TEAM is bad. if you lose a lot of games, scoring differentials will always be negative. if you play most of those losing game minutes, (around 42mpg) your differentials will look worse.
ellis is a better player than curry-- especially offensively-- the one area that the w's were good at. he carried the load in that category.
the warriors can get more in return for trading curry. this shit should be a no-brainer.
and way to psycho-analyze it at the end there, braintrust.
If you're going to try to insult me with "braintrust" you should try to do it without first revealing your own sad lack of reading comprehension. Sure, the differentials of players on a losing team will be bad, but the stat about Ellis isn't his differential against the league. It's his differential against HIS OWN TEAM. They scored more when he wasn't on the floor, get it? Your point that they'll struggle to score points without him is invalidated by the fact that they didn't struggle to score points without him. They scored more. Significantly more.
Do you know why the Warriors can get more in return for Curry? It's not just the contract. Curry's a better player and a whole lot more likely to contribute to a winning team than Ellis. Even out their contracts and there would still be more interest in Curry than in Ellis.
I'm glad there is a lockout. I hope they contract some of the teams. Hunh! I've been bitter since The Sonics were stolen and think the NBA needs a shakeup (if you could not tell)
The Dallas run was really great to watch though
Why does the NBA need a shakeup?
The Finals ratings were high as hell.
Durant,Rose, and other upcoming stars were featured in the playoffs.
Pleez to Explain?
Not only were the ratings high, but it was one of the best finals in recent memory and the underdog won a compelling victory for the ages.
I'm glad there is a lockout. I hope they contract some of the teams. Hunh! I've been bitter since The Sonics were stolen and think the NBA needs a shakeup (if you could not tell)
The Dallas run was really great to watch though
Why does the NBA need a shakeup?
The Finals ratings were high as hell.
Durant,Rose, and other upcoming stars were featured in the playoffs.
Pleez to Explain?
Not only were the ratings high, but it was one of the best finals in recent memory and the underdog won a compelling victory for the ages.
It was also a pretty exciting season.
What's the desperate need for a 'shake up'?
The NBA without Toronto, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Atlanta, Clippers, Minnesota, New Orleans would be a playoff bonaza. Every game would be on par with March Madness but with the teams loaded with talent.
I'm glad there is a lockout. I hope they contract some of the teams. Hunh! I've been bitter since The Sonics were stolen and think the NBA needs a shakeup (if you could not tell)
The Dallas run was really great to watch though
Why does the NBA need a shakeup?
The Finals ratings were high as hell.
Durant,Rose, and other upcoming stars were featured in the playoffs.
Pleez to Explain?
Not only were the ratings high, but it was one of the best finals in recent memory and the underdog won a compelling victory for the ages.
It was also a pretty exciting season.
What's the desperate need for a 'shake up'?
The NBA without Toronto, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Atlanta, Clippers, Minnesota, New Orleans would be a playoff bonaza. Every game would be on par with March Madness but with the teams loaded with talent.
Ill agree to taking out Toronto and shaving 4 more teams down to 25, but....
Fuck March Madness and College Basketball. Why have two of the same models??
Go watch that shit for that style of game and keep that Tuba playing screaming sorority Sparkle Magic bullshit away from Professional Baskeball.
The OG Charlotte was a very good expansion franchise. They are now in New Orleans......ehhhh.
The Bobcats havent really done much but the NC fan base will always be there.....ehhh.
Atlanta has been to the playoffs quite often, so I dont see why they should go.
Minnesota could go but Love an All-Star white boy is a big ticket seller.......ehhh.
Clippers got lucky w/ Blake Griffin - big ticket = money.......ehhh.
Milwaukee has been treading water for a while but doesnt deserve to go in my book.
Sacramento can go IMO. Or move the Clippers to Sacremento.
do you really NEED the warriors, lakers, clippers and kings? seriously?
and while i understand your loathe of toronto having a team, attendance has never been an issue, nor has any money-making as a franchise. canada isn't ruining the NBA, it's that canada's team is currently acting like a euro-funnel.
do you really NEED the warriors, lakers, clippers and kings? seriously?
and while i understand your loathe of toronto having a team, attendance has never been an issue, nor has any money-making as a franchise. canada isn't ruining the NBA, it's that canada's team is currently acting like a euro-funnel.
I agree that Cali doesnt need 4 teams but two would be fine.
I would keep Golden State and LA.
Toronto isnt "ruining" the NBA and neither are any of the teams Ive listed, but if the 16 years they been here they been to the playoffs 5 times and knocked out of the first round 4 times.
The product has been weak, despite the money and attendance.
Slash one franchise from each Division.
Atlantic - New York, Philly, Boston, New Jersey/Brooklyn and Toronto. Who should go?
Central - Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee......
Southeast - Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Washington and Charlotte......
Northwest - Portland, OKC, Utah, Denver, and Minnesota.........
Pacific - LAkers, Phoenix, Golden State, LAC, and Sacramento.......
Southwest - San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans and Memphis(Vancouver expansion)........
Fuck March Madness and College Basketball. Why have two of the same models??
Go watch that shit for that style of game and keep that Tuba playing screaming sorority Sparkle Magic bullshit away from Professional Baskeball.
The OG Charlotte was a very good expansion franchise. They are now in New Orleans......ehhhh.
The Bobcats havent really done much but the NC fan base will always be there.....ehhh.
Atlanta has been to the playoffs quite often, so I dont see why they should go.
Minnesota could go but Love an All-Star white boy is a big ticket seller.......ehhh.
Clippers got lucky w/ Blake Griffin - big ticket = money.......ehhh.
Milwaukee has been treading water for a while but doesnt deserve to go in my book.
Sacramento can go IMO. Or move the Clippers to Sacremento.
I'm not into march madness but there is a certain cultural cache associated with it. This produces big bucks, which the owners are all about. I don't want the nba to be the ncaa I just want an excitement level on par with it.
Atlanta should go b/c Atlanteans could give a fick on way or another is my only rationale. As in you are not worthy.
This years NBA Playoffs/Finals was better than the entire College season.
It should be that way when comparing college teams vs pros, but I think the gap is a lot smaller when we're talking about basketball than other sports. There are years when March Madness beats the NBA playoffs entertainment-wise.
The most obvious "must-go" team in the NBA if there was contraction is the Clippers. They have been run on the cheap the whole time they have been in LA, they will always be the sad little brother to the Lakers. The fact that there was even talk of adding a third team (the Kings) to that market is just ridiculous. Give the Clips back to San Diego (or move the Kings there.)
Charlotte can go too. North Carolina is college basketball country.
Also, in spite of the success of both franchises, Florida only needs one team.
OKC is unlikely to be a financially successful franchise in ten years when the excitement of having a new team is over and Durant is at the end of his career.
Suns could become a surprisingly marginal team id they stay on a downward trajectory. (depending on those bored retirees is a risky game, Orlando needs to be careful about this too.)
Cities that deserve an NBA franchise:
Seattle is a great NBA city. They just had no appetite for spending public monies on a stadium after the Mariners fiasco and so David Stern decided to make an example of them
Las Vegas is a place people go to spend money, they would sell out every night - gambling connections make it sketchy but still....
Brooklyn - New York area could support another team even of the Nets stay where they are
St. Louis and Kansas City could make a go of it, but they are at the OKC/Memphis level and they would have to persevere
If the owners win this labor battle then small-market teams might be better positioned
OKC is unlikely to be a financially successful franchise in ten years when the excitement of having a new team is over and Durant is at the end of his career.
Cities that deserve an NBA franchise:
Brooklyn - New York area could support another team even of the Nets stay where they are
Kansas City could make a go of it, but they are at the OKC/Memphis level and they would have to persevere
If the owners win this labor battle then small-market teams might be better positioned
I agree with most of what you posted....
Predicting failure 10 years down the road for OKC is a stretch at best. OKC has grown in a similar but smaller way than Dallas and have lots of transplants who appreciate the NBA in more than just a passing fancy. They are in my mind a MUCH better NBA city than San Antonio.College basketball is not that big a deal there.
I can't see the NY/NJ area supporting 3 teams.....the Nets moved to NJ because they couldn't compete with the Knicks within NY.
Kansas City, by virtue of being in close proximity of Lawrence, is more of a college basketball town than OKC is.
Predicting failure 10 years down the road for OKC is a stretch at best. OKC has grown in a similar but smaller way than Dallas and have lots of transplants who appreciate the NBA in more than just a passing fancy. They are in my mind a MUCH better NBA city than San Antonio.College basketball is not that big a deal there.
OKC metropolitan area = 1,252,987 people
Dallas metropolitan area = approximately 6.5 million
there is no comparison in terms of supporting a sports franchise
I can't see the NY/NJ area supporting 3 teams.....the Nets moved to NJ because they couldn't compete with the Knicks within NY.
Not exactly. The Knicks screwed the Nets by getting the NBA to charge them a "fee" for sharing NYC. I forget the exact details, but the extortion amount was substantial and forced the Nets to dump Doctor J.
Who knows what would have happened if the playing field had been level? J still had a lot of good years left when it happened. And it's not like the Knicks have been tough to compete with very often since those days.
Predicting failure 10 years down the road for OKC is a stretch at best. OKC has grown in a similar but smaller way than Dallas and have lots of transplants who appreciate the NBA in more than just a passing fancy. They are in my mind a MUCH better NBA city than San Antonio.College basketball is not that big a deal there.
OKC metropolitan area = 1,252,987 people
Dallas metropolitan area = approximately 6.5 million
there is no comparison in terms of supporting a sports franchise
Are you a disgruntled ex-Sonics fan??
The Thunder sold out all 41 home games. OKC is a thriving city, unlike many urban areas, and the NBA is the only pro sport they have to spend their money on....they obviously won't have as many TV viewers as a city like Dallas but as far as selling tickets they're close to the Top 10 in the L.
I can't see the NY/NJ area supporting 3 teams.....the Nets moved to NJ because they couldn't compete with the Knicks within NY.
Not exactly. The Knicks screwed the Nets by getting the NBA to charge them a "fee" for sharing NYC. I forget the exact details, but the extortion amount was substantial and forced the Nets to dump Doctor J.
Who knows what would have happened if the playing field had been level? J still had a lot of good years left when it happened. And it's not like the Knicks have been tough to compete with very often since those days.
I went to many, many Nets games in the 70's...... my Dad was involved with the local Police Boys Club who would take 25-50 kids to each game. Getting free tickets was easy as they never sold out, not even after Julius arrived.
Yeah, the Knicks pulled some sleazy move, but the Nets weren't drawing well at all.
Comments
Where do u see his ceiling?
I can see 18+ 8 assists per in the future.
I would pair him w/ a ball handling Big 2(Iggy) or Point Forward so he can get some shots off ball.
i see him at 15/7-8 and getting blown up by bigger or more athletic guards for the rest of his career. i also see him missing 8-10 games per season with ankle injuries.
like i said, he's a great shooter, but if his +/- stays in the negative as the starting pg he's a liability.
sure, ellis isn't the defensive answer, but he's got more size to guard bigger, more athletic pg's and can get a shot in the paint at-will. curry will never be able to do that as efficiently.
damned if u do damned if you dont
Curry is already scraping near 19 points per. U think he'll decline in the next 5 years?
Then why don't they struggle to put up numbers now when Ellis's overrated ass is not on the floor?
One more time:
"The most damning stat, however, is how much better the team played without him. Golden State outscored its opponents quite comfortably as long as Ellis wasn't around, and finished a whopping 11.4 points per 100 possessions better without Ellis -- giving him the single worst differential in basketball."
People who follow losing teams for too long develop affections for losing machines like Ellis. If he's the best player on your team you've got NO SHOT at being good. The Warriors should dump him for a role player with some defensive skills and move on.
The warriors need to get bigger and more defensive. Trading Ellis will hopefully help in both departments. Being able to score is not what they need to work on. Being an offensive team has not helped them at all.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.basketball.nba.gs-warriors/browse_thread/thread/dc701c7446738168#
Goddammit.
I just hope they can get it done so there is a full season and not a third shaved away like last time.
July/August/Sept.......
DALLA MAVERICKS 2010-2012 CHAMPS!!!
The Dallas run was really great to watch though
Why does the NBA need a shakeup?
The Finals ratings were high as hell.
Durant,Rose, and other upcoming stars were featured in the playoffs.
Pleez to Explain?
same shit can be said about most players on the warriors when the stat is looking at differentials. they lost a ton of games...
the warriors were way worse (statistically, as a team) at rebounding last season with lee on the floor. isn't dude supposed to be super rebounder? i don't hear anyone demanding that lee get shopped. (this may, however, be because they literally can't trade him. they signed him to a terrible contract.)
all of these adjusted stats look terrible when the ENTIRE TEAM is bad. if you lose a lot of games, scoring differentials will always be negative. if you play most of those losing game minutes, (around 42mpg) your differentials will look worse.
ellis is a better player than curry-- especially offensively-- the one area that the w's were good at. he carried the load in that category.
the warriors can get more in return for trading curry. this shit should be a no-brainer.
and way to psycho-analyze it at the end there, braintrust.
If you're going to try to insult me with "braintrust" you should try to do it without first revealing your own sad lack of reading comprehension. Sure, the differentials of players on a losing team will be bad, but the stat about Ellis isn't his differential against the league. It's his differential against HIS OWN TEAM. They scored more when he wasn't on the floor, get it? Your point that they'll struggle to score points without him is invalidated by the fact that they didn't struggle to score points without him. They scored more. Significantly more.
Do you know why the Warriors can get more in return for Curry? It's not just the contract. Curry's a better player and a whole lot more likely to contribute to a winning team than Ellis. Even out their contracts and there would still be more interest in Curry than in Ellis.
Not only were the ratings high, but it was one of the best finals in recent memory and the underdog won a compelling victory for the ages.
It was also a pretty exciting season.
What's the desperate need for a 'shake up'?
The NBA without Toronto, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Atlanta, Clippers, Minnesota, New Orleans would be a playoff bonaza. Every game would be on par with March Madness but with the teams loaded with talent.
This just in: http://www.onionsportsnetwork.com/articles/mysterious-black-family-going-from-nascar-race-to,20837/
Ill agree to taking out Toronto and shaving 4 more teams down to 25, but....
Fuck March Madness and College Basketball. Why have two of the same models??
Go watch that shit for that style of game and keep that Tuba playing screaming sorority Sparkle Magic bullshit away from Professional Baskeball.
The OG Charlotte was a very good expansion franchise. They are now in New Orleans......ehhhh.
The Bobcats havent really done much but the NC fan base will always be there.....ehhh.
Atlanta has been to the playoffs quite often, so I dont see why they should go.
Minnesota could go but Love an All-Star white boy is a big ticket seller.......ehhh.
Clippers got lucky w/ Blake Griffin - big ticket = money.......ehhh.
Milwaukee has been treading water for a while but doesnt deserve to go in my book.
Sacramento can go IMO. Or move the Clippers to Sacremento.
and while i understand your loathe of toronto having a team, attendance has never been an issue, nor has any money-making as a franchise. canada isn't ruining the NBA, it's that canada's team is currently acting like a euro-funnel.
I agree that Cali doesnt need 4 teams but two would be fine.
I would keep Golden State and LA.
Toronto isnt "ruining" the NBA and neither are any of the teams Ive listed, but if the 16 years they been here they been to the playoffs 5 times and knocked out of the first round 4 times.
The product has been weak, despite the money and attendance.
Slash one franchise from each Division.
Atlantic - New York, Philly, Boston, New Jersey/Brooklyn and Toronto. Who should go?
Central - Chicago, Indiana, Detroit, Cleveland and Milwaukee......
Southeast - Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Washington and Charlotte......
Northwest - Portland, OKC, Utah, Denver, and Minnesota.........
Pacific - LAkers, Phoenix, Golden State, LAC, and Sacramento.......
Southwest - San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans and Memphis(Vancouver expansion)........
Go watch that shit for that style of game and keep that Tuba playing screaming sorority Sparkle Magic bullshit away from Professional Baskeball.
The OG Charlotte was a very good expansion franchise. They are now in New Orleans......ehhhh.
The Bobcats havent really done much but the NC fan base will always be there.....ehhh.
Atlanta has been to the playoffs quite often, so I dont see why they should go.
Minnesota could go but Love an All-Star white boy is a big ticket seller.......ehhh.
Clippers got lucky w/ Blake Griffin - big ticket = money.......ehhh.
Milwaukee has been treading water for a while but doesnt deserve to go in my book.
Sacramento can go IMO. Or move the Clippers to Sacremento.
I'm not into march madness but there is a certain cultural cache associated with it. This produces big bucks, which the owners are all about. I don't want the nba to be the ncaa I just want an excitement level on par with it.
Atlanta should go b/c Atlanteans could give a fick on way or another is my only rationale. As in you are not worthy.
It should be that way when comparing college teams vs pros, but I think the gap is a lot smaller when we're talking about basketball than other sports. There are years when March Madness beats the NBA playoffs entertainment-wise.
Charlotte can go too. North Carolina is college basketball country.
Also, in spite of the success of both franchises, Florida only needs one team.
OKC is unlikely to be a financially successful franchise in ten years when the excitement of having a new team is over and Durant is at the end of his career.
Suns could become a surprisingly marginal team id they stay on a downward trajectory. (depending on those bored retirees is a risky game, Orlando needs to be careful about this too.)
Cities that deserve an NBA franchise:
Seattle is a great NBA city. They just had no appetite for spending public monies on a stadium after the Mariners fiasco and so David Stern decided to make an example of them
Las Vegas is a place people go to spend money, they would sell out every night - gambling connections make it sketchy but still....
Brooklyn - New York area could support another team even of the Nets stay where they are
St. Louis and Kansas City could make a go of it, but they are at the OKC/Memphis level and they would have to persevere
If the owners win this labor battle then small-market teams might be better positioned
I agree with most of what you posted....
Predicting failure 10 years down the road for OKC is a stretch at best. OKC has grown in a similar but smaller way than Dallas and have lots of transplants who appreciate the NBA in more than just a passing fancy. They are in my mind a MUCH better NBA city than San Antonio.College basketball is not that big a deal there.
I can't see the NY/NJ area supporting 3 teams.....the Nets moved to NJ because they couldn't compete with the Knicks within NY.
Kansas City, by virtue of being in close proximity of Lawrence, is more of a college basketball town than OKC is.
OKC metropolitan area = 1,252,987 people
Dallas metropolitan area = approximately 6.5 million
there is no comparison in terms of supporting a sports franchise
Not exactly. The Knicks screwed the Nets by getting the NBA to charge them a "fee" for sharing NYC. I forget the exact details, but the extortion amount was substantial and forced the Nets to dump Doctor J.
Who knows what would have happened if the playing field had been level? J still had a lot of good years left when it happened. And it's not like the Knicks have been tough to compete with very often since those days.
Are you a disgruntled ex-Sonics fan??
The Thunder sold out all 41 home games. OKC is a thriving city, unlike many urban areas, and the NBA is the only pro sport they have to spend their money on....they obviously won't have as many TV viewers as a city like Dallas but as far as selling tickets they're close to the Top 10 in the L.
I went to many, many Nets games in the 70's...... my Dad was involved with the local Police Boys Club who would take 25-50 kids to each game. Getting free tickets was easy as they never sold out, not even after Julius arrived.
Yeah, the Knicks pulled some sleazy move, but the Nets weren't drawing well at all.