thomchatt3rton wrote:Pachinko_ wrote:weezybaby856 wrote:
Yeah I hear you bro and I agree but at the same time it still doesn't change the fact we are bottom 5 in "league market" and Toronto is in the upper echelon in that category as well. The business side of the NBA will always trump any sort of "feel good story". The NBA has really nothing to gain from MKE advancing deep in the playoffs besides national attention that's irrelevant to the major media outlets and consumers of the league. Giannis and Jason Kidd have brought MKE back from obscurity but if you really think that's enough to change the culture of the league and not try and force a Toronto/Boston/Cleveland ECF then I got bad news for you, it's not. That's just my opinion but I've been following the NBA as a die hard Bucks fan for 30yrs now since the late 80s early 90s and it's pretty much always been that way minus the few years teams like MKE Detroit New Jersey and Indiana were good and of course the Lebron era of Cleveland but Lebron is the biggest market on his own so I don't even really count that. Chicago New York and Boston have been the NBA "darlings" for a reason, even when they stink they're still more relevant than a championship caliber small market. It's just the nature of the beast.
Maybe I don't know, things are kinda changing lately with all the international players and all those people around the world buying league passes and team gear... not everything hinges on local TV ratings anymore, NBA is the only truly international league. Giannis selling jerseys in China etc, he's already a mini-Lebron
And to be honest I never bought the idea that the league was shutting down the Bucks of the last couple of decades, those teams were shutting themselves down because they were crap. When they were good nobody stopped them from making the ECF.
Putting aside whether the league tries to shut down small-market teams (they absolutely, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt have done it in the past) the issue of market-size is still relevant, despite the things you say about internet globalism being increasingly true (to an extent). It's relevant to the league and it's certainly relevant to national media.
We probably do have some "league darling" qualities, but we have a ways to go and a lot of winning to do to transcend not just our small-market but also our history of irrelevance/losing. And even then, the issue of our being small-market will continue to be a factor
to some degree.
Yes, there will always be a big market bias. The Bucks as a team will never be able to compete with the LA's and NY's in terms of nation-wide marketability. But, the one thing that trumps that is having a superstar on your team. Common basketball fans around the country are just now starting to hear about Giannis, he still is a relative unknown. Bucks fans need to realize that regardless of how great we know he is, he is NOT a household name yet. Once he becomes a household name (and that day is coming soon), the small market Bucks will soon start to see big market type coverage. The NBA is a "stars" league; Giannis is a budding superstar. So don't worry, our time in the spotlight is coming soon.
The last time the Bucks had a star, it was Ray Allen. But the difference between Allen and Giannis is huge, as far as marketability. Allen was great, a HOF player, but his quiet demeaner and style of play was never going to draw enough attention to MIL to make the team a prime time player, as far as the media is concerned. It didn't matter that the Bucks were a great team and in the ECF, they didn't have an Iverson, but the Sixers did. Giannis, on the other hand, has the style of play that cannot be ignored. He plays "loud", with a power and enthusiasm that is exactly what the NBA wants, marketing-wise.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Giannis and the Bucks will have arrived once the casual fans can pronounce "Antetokounmpo." That day will come, but for now, let's quit trying to speed up the process and just enjoy the ride. The Bucks WILL be relevant again soon.