MattFancy Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 This was a pretty horrible match up. Wasn't the Spurs/Pistons finals a bust too? Yup, the NBA has had some stinkers for NBA Finals just like the World Series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_television_ratings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullnelson9999 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I've had this discussion with people before and I've come to realize that the vast majority of people who believe basketball is more popular are primarily NBA fans, where the number of people who say baseball are fans of multiple sports and are less biased. I'll say this though. I think that if someone is going to follow only one sport (as many do), it's going to be either the NFL or the NBA. So the NB A has that going for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 See I consider myself and my friends to be pretty big sports fans. We talk NFL, MLB, college football, college basketball. There usually isn't much NBA talk though. I could tell you their favorite NFL, MLB, and college teams, but as for NBA, I couldn't tell you who most of them like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I'm not sure how you would judge "more popular". I think the NBA has more recognizable and marketable athletes than MLB and the story lines are more talked about in the media. Personally I think baseball is absolutely boring to watch. During the few Nats games that I tried to watch I had the iPad out and would look up at the TV screen now and then. That mimics the experience at the park where most people in the stands (regular season) are more interested in chatting, eating, and drinking beer than they are the game itself. It's a slow plodding mess that has fewer exciting plays than just about any other major sport. Even the highlights tend to suck. ... so yeah you could say I'm biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaticSkinsFan Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Definitely MLB. What do you see more of: MLB hats or NBA jerseys? false comparison no? Fitteds and snap backs cost a lot less than NBA jerseys. How many MLB jerseys do you see in comparison to NBA ones? I will say this, MLB is more popular but NBA have bigger stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 MLB is the 2nd most popular sport in America, and the most popular not named football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Ticket prices are a horrible judge of that. In fact, hockey tickets are way more expensive than bothI'm pretty sure MLB has more ticket rev than NBA though ( it was a question on a midterm last year lol) That's the point. MLB has more ticket revenue on a lower per-ticket price. Said another way, MLB averages over 30,000 attendees per game while the NBA averages over 17,000 per game. You could argue venue size, but it's kind of a moot point, so it's easier to just consider the league revenue numbers overall, which includes everything. Some people may like the NBA over the MLB, but it's just foolish to say that the NBA is more popular in the U.S. overall. $7 billion vs. $4.3 billion is not a rounding error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 false comparison no? Fitteds and snap backs cost a lot less than NBA jerseys.How many MLB jerseys do you see in comparison to NBA ones? I will say this, MLB is more popular but NBA have bigger stars. I agree that comparison is bad. Two can play at that game: when is the last time you saw anyone wearing shoes with a MLB players name on them (or any other sport for that matter)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I agree that comparison is bad. Two can play at that game: when is the last time you saw anyone wearing shoes with a MLB players name on them (or any other sport for that matter)? Nike re-releases Griffeys all the time. (I have a pair as does all of my friends) Plus, nobody wears anything besides re-released Jordans anyway Lebrons don't get play like that neither do Kobes ---------- Post added October-30th-2012 at 02:32 PM ---------- false comparison no? Fitteds and snap backs cost a lot less than NBA jerseys.How many MLB jerseys do you see in comparison to NBA ones? I will say this, MLB is more popular but NBA have bigger stars. This is a bad argument cuz no one wears jerseys anymore but I do see more rappers/ppl I know wearing vintage baseball jerseys nowadays. Just saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 This quantifies it: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2011/01/poll-nfl-beats-baseball-again-as-americas-most-popular-sport/1#.UJAchMXA9C0 It's a football vs. baseball article, but the poll just asked for people to name their favorite sport and no where does the article even mention basketball. I think baseball is the clear #2 in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 One more thing on live attendance. In 2012, Baseball stadiums were filled to 71.5% of capacity. In 2010-2011(ignoring the lockout '11-'12 season), NBA arenas were filled to 90.6% of capacity. This tells you a bit about why ticket prices are much higher for the NBA (lower supply). That said, I believe that absolute numbers matter. More attendees per game means more fans, period. And that's why for popularity's sake one should just look at fans per game (and ignore capacity). By the way, that's all in a vacuum. The most important number is of course total league revenue. Again, MLB completely crushes NBA in that regard ($7 billion to $4.3 billion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afkidd Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 i've never met a timberwolves fan, nets fan, clippers fan, repeating x infinity for any team not named lakers, heat, knicks, bulls, celtics. it's really a league dominated by those teams, and their fans. sorry, 7 footers dunking isn't really all that impressive, especially when there's no defense, and players just move out of the way so they don't show up on ESPN. but baseball is boring too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaticSkinsFan Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I agree that comparison is bad. Two can play at that game: when is the last time you saw anyone wearing shoes with a MLB players name on them (or any other sport for that matter)? yeah. its how both leagues are marketed. I kind of wish the NBA had a more team approach like baseball, but I also wish MLB highlighted their stars more like the NBA. Nike re-releases Griffeys all the time. (I have a pair as does all of my friends)Plus, nobody wears anything besides re-released Jordans anyway Lebrons don't get play like that neither do Kobes Griffeys are like the only MLB signature shoe I have ever seen. There is a reason for that. MLB players arent the stars like NBA players. and Kobes and Lebrons arent as popular as Jordans, but they are popular. This is a bad argument cuz no one wears jerseys anymore but I do see more rappers/ppl I know wearing vintage baseball jerseys nowadays. Just saying rappers dont wear vintage MLB jerseys anymore. WE in the rap-emo/hipster age now. throwback era was the early 2000s. my point was that comparing fitteds to jerseys is a terrible comparison because of price. A lot of people wear fitteds and snapbacks because they got with their outfit, not because they care about baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Lastly, in my opinion Nielsen Ratings are pretty irrelevant these days. It's more accurate to look at the negotiated television deals struck between leagues and broadcast partners. If you look at publicly available reporting on the latest deals, the NBA will receive approximately $930 million from all sources per year (source: Wikipedia). The MLB will receive approximately $1.55 billion per year (source: Bud Selig statement). It's pretty clear that the networks view MLB as the more valuable asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Nike re-releases Griffeys all the time. (I have a pair as does all of my friends)Plus, nobody wears anything besides re-released Jordans anyway Lebrons don't get play like that neither do Kobes You really aren't even close to reality on that.... Overall, Nike saw its year-over-year share gains in the US increase 31 percent year-over-year last week, according to UBS.Individually, the Jordan brand increased 89 percent year-over-year last week. Nike and Converse were up year-over-year as well, but just 19 and 4.5 percent respectively. Basketball season ending last week was the big driver for the huge spike in Jordan sales. http://www.businessinsider.com/nikes-jordan-sales-up-89-year-over-year-2012-6People wear new and rereleased Jordans and they pay a lot of money for both. Comparing them to Griffey's is ridiculous. Also while I don't see that many Kobe and Lebron shoes away from the court, I do see them. The low top version of the Lebron shoes aren't uncommon. Certainly more often than Griffey's. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 yeah. its how both leagues are marketed. I kind of wish the NBA had a more team approach like baseball, but I also wish MLB highlighted their stars more like the NBA.Griffeys are like the only MLB signature shoe I have ever seen. There is a reason for that. MLB players arent the stars like NBA players. and Kobes and Lebrons arent as popular as Jordans, but they are popular. rappers dont wear vintage MLB jerseys anymore. WE in the rap-emo/hipster age now. throwback era was the early 2000s. my point was that comparing fitteds to jerseys is a terrible comparison because of price. A lot of people wear fitteds and snapbacks because they got with their outfit, not because they care about baseball. son, I know lol I'm consider my self a hipster of sorts anyway but I see Tyga and Wale wearing baseball jerseys all the time. That was my point. As far as snapbacks go though, I'm pretty sure NBA ones (esp. Lakers and Bulls) are most popular because of the whole "90s is cool now" thing ---------- Post added October-30th-2012 at 02:47 PM ---------- You really aren't even close to reality on that....http://www.businessinsider.com/nikes-jordan-sales-up-89-year-over-year-2012-6 People wear new and rereleased Jordans and they pay a lot of money for both. Comparing them to Griffey's is ridiculous. You said when was the last time you saw a baseball player on a shoe...I said Griffey. Never said they were more popular than J's. My point is the only hot shoes are from MICHAEL JORDAN (who retired 10 years ago) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Griffeys are like the only MLB signature shoe I have ever seen. There is a reason for that. MLB players arent the stars like NBA players. and Kobes and Lebrons arent as popular as Jordans, but they are popular. That's because MLB players wear cleats. You don't see any NFL player shoes do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 false comparison no? Fitteds and snap backs cost a lot less than NBA jerseys.How many MLB jerseys do you see in comparison to NBA ones? I will say this, MLB is more popular but NBA have bigger stars. Well MLB jerseys or more expensive than NBA ones but I see your point. And I agree with your 2nd point that the NBA has more recognizable stars. And I'd say MLB probably has more recognizable teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 Lastly, in my opinion Nielsen Ratings are pretty irrelevant these days. It's more accurate to look at the negotiated television deals struck between leagues and broadcast partners. If you look at publicly available reporting on the latest deals, the NBA will receive approximately $930 million from all sources per year (source: Wikipedia). The MLB will receive approximately $1.55 billion per year (source: Bud Selig statement). It's pretty clear that the networks view MLB as the more valuable asset. I think it's the opposite. The tv deal is an estimate on what the networks think the numbers will be. It also can turn into a bidding war. The Nielsen Ratings are the actuals, estimates can be severly wrong. If the World Series can't draw more than an 8 and keep falling, some tv execs are going to be very upset. I will say that at my office, everyone has a favorite baseball team that they are in to. I'm the only Wiz fan and no one else cares about the NBA. Small sample size though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I think it's the opposite. The tv deal is an estimate on what the networks think the numbers will be. It also can turn into a bidding war. The Nielsen Ratings are the actuals, estimates can be severly wrong. If the World Series can't draw more than an 8 and keep falling, some tv execs are going to be very upset.I will say that at my office, everyone has a favorite baseball team that they are in to. I'm the only Wiz fan and no one else cares about the NBA. Small sample size though. Do they watch the games? I know a lot of people that claim to be baseball fans but when I ask them the last time they watched an entire baseball game they have a hard time remembering it. That's the thing with baseball, it's a lot more fun to "follow" than it is to actually force yourself to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaticSkinsFan Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 That's because MLB players wear cleats. You don't see any NFL player shoes do you? its not because of cleats. The Griffeys are one of the most popular shoes ever. I had a pair of Griffey Max 2s when I was in middle school. They were great shoes, and Griffey was the biggest star in MLB in the 1990s. I didnt walk around them in cleats, and neither did anyone else. :pfft: MLB just doesnt market its stars. They havent since Griffey, and I would argue that was more of Griffey on his own than any MLB push. The NFL have the same issue as MLB with pushing teams over stars. ---------- Post added October-30th-2012 at 03:13 PM ---------- son, I know lolI'm consider my self a hipster of sorts anyway but I see Tyga and Wale wearing baseball jerseys all the time. That was my point. As far as snapbacks go though, I'm pretty sure NBA ones (esp. Lakers and Bulls) are most popular because of the whole "90s is cool now" thing im not about that hipster life, lol. I dont see MLB jerseys much anymore tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDane Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I think it's the opposite. The tv deal is an estimate on what the networks think the numbers will be. It also can turn into a bidding war. The Nielsen Ratings are the actuals, estimates can be severly wrong. If the World Series can't draw more than an 8 and keep falling, some tv execs are going to be very upset.I will say that at my office, everyone has a favorite baseball team that they are in to. I'm the only Wiz fan and no one else cares about the NBA. Small sample size though. What I mean is, ratings for these sporting events have inherent volatility based on which markets are represented in the finals. For example, Giants-Tigers laid stinker ratings. 2011 was a 10.0 average for the series -- which, interestingly, was statistically the same as the 2011 NBA finals. In 2009, the World Series drew 11.7 while the NBA Finals drew 8.4. Why: Yankees-Phillies. This volatility is the risk that all TV executives take when signing the deals. It's priced into the deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 its not because of cleats. The Griffeys are one of the most popular shoes ever. I had a pair of Griffey Max 2s when I was in middle school. They were great shoes, and Griffey was the biggest star in MLB in the 1990s. I didnt walk around them in cleats, and neither did anyone else. :pfft:MLB just doesnt market its stars. They havent since Griffey, and I would argue that was more of Griffey on his own than any MLB push. The NFL have the same issue as MLB with pushing teams over stars. ---------- Post added October-30th-2012 at 03:13 PM ---------- im not about that hipster life, lol. I dont see MLB jerseys much anymore tho. I'm not an American Apparel type dude but more like an Urban Outfitters guy lol I still do my urban thing tho. Back to the topic, I think the only way that NBA can surpass is if they somehow get more parity in the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Do they watch the games? I know a lot of people that claim to be baseball fans but when I ask them the last time they watched an entire baseball game they have a hard time remembering it. That's the thing with baseball, it's a lot more fun to "follow" than it is to actually force yourself to watch. The beauty of baseball is that you don't have to watch every inning of every game. There are so many of them that you can turn a July game on in the 5th inning. The same applies to the NBA though. I could sit through a baseball game much more easily than an NBA game. And that's coming from someone who played basketball his entire life up to the varsity level in high school. It's always been so much more enjoyable to play than it was to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsiaticSkinsFan Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 I'm not an American Apparel type dude but more like an Urban Outfitters guy lolI still do my urban thing tho. urban wear is dead. I guess since Im older now, but I dont see it much anymore. Back to the topic, I think the only way that NBA can surpass is if they somehow get more parity in the league will never happen, and should never happen. The NBA is at its best when there are super teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.