RRyder823 wrote:ElPeregrino wrote:RRyder823 wrote:Honestly I dont think you even have to look outside of the state to fully understand it. Certain teams are just ingrained in culture of an area.
Sent from my SM-G892A using
RealGM mobile app
The Lakers are a part of LA culture because they have 11 championships while the Clippers have never even been to a conference final. It's that simple. If it had been the Clippers who had Kareem/Magic and Shaq/Kobe collecting rings while the Lakers were consistently the laughing stock of the NBA then LA would be a Clippers town right now.
Question. If the Bucks won say 3-4 championships the next 10 years while the Packers go 3-13 every year in those 10 which do you think is more likely?
1: The Bucks either pull even or pass the Packers in terms of popularity in the state
2: The lead topic being discussed on sports radio around the state being "Can the new highly drafted rookie turn around the Packers fortunes?"
Apply the answer to Lakers/Clippers
Sent from my SM-G892A using
RealGM mobile app
You're talking about different sports. Wisconsin is a football state. You might as well ask if Wisconsin produces three of the next 10 national spelling bee champions, would the spelling bee become more popular than the NFL. In order for the Bucks to overtake the Packers, you need the NBA to overtake the NFL in Wisconsin.
The Clippers and Lakers play the same sport in the same building. Yeah, obviously the Lakers are more popular than the Clippers and it's been like that for a long time so I understand why it seems like that's the way it will always be. Since the Clippers moved to Los Angeles 35 years ago, no team in the NBA has lost more games. In that same time, the Lakers have won the second most games (behind SA) and the most championships. Do you think it's just a coincidence that the entire town roots for the team that happens to be the most successful team in the NBA over the team that happens to be the least successful team in the NBA?
RiotPunch wrote:The Clippers had five 50+ win seasons in a row, while the Lakers went 136-274 in that same time frame, and no one gave two **** about the Clippers while hyping the **** out of the "Baby Lakers" dog **** roster.
It seems that you believe I said people in Los Angeles will root for either the Lakers or Clippers based on who is better at that very moment in time. My response is directed to the comment that Los Angeles will always be a Lakers town, which is analogous to saying it's impossible for the Clippers to sustain on court superiority over the Lakers for an extended period of time.
Nobody is arguing that a Clippers team who has never been a title contender should surpass the Lakers in popularity based on their recent relative success. These things take decades barring extraordinary circumstances (like the Clippers winning a bunch of championships while the Lakers perennially suck). This is the most successful stretch in Clippers history and they still have never made it out of the second round. The Lakers, despite their recent rebuild, have still won two championships within the past ten years.