RealGM

I voted Milwaukee. It may not be a Brewers/Twins matchup or as interesting as a Vikings/Packers game, but unfortunately it's all we got.

For starters, Milwaukee is the closest team to Minnesota (can't really say the same about any team in our division).

Love played with Jennings (among many other future college stars) with the Southern California All Stars team (they went on to defeat a Rose and Gordon led team). Thanks Wiki

Most importantly, Jennings Jennings Jennings. Heres Jennings thoughts on Rubio...

if he was in a workout with me, Jonny Flynn, Jrue Holiday, Ty Lawson and Stephen Curry, he wouldn’t even be at the top.

Yeah, I think I’m a better player than Rubio is; I can shoot the ball better than he can. You know, the only time I have seen him do something is when he has a home run pass or something like that. I think the dude is just all hype.

I didn't even know Milwaukee had a team.

casey wrote:I didn't even know Milwaukee had a team.

Milwaukee residents don't know that either.

Living in Madison for 5 years, I felt surrounded by Packers fans, Brewers fans, and people who didn't know basketball existed.

Basketball? Don't you mean BASEketball?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131857/

David Stern, and his lottery ball machine.

shrink wrote:David Stern, and his lottery ball machine.

We will have our revenge!

Seriously though, lack of rivalries is a problem for most NBA teams, stemming from the structure of the NBA's format. With 16 teams making the play-offs, rivalries don't often matter, and moreover, particularly in the western conference, teams are so far away geographically that rivalries are slight. I think that if they could develop rivalries better, it would be a method to increase NBA revenues.

In my dream world, a team like CHA gets bought out and moved to Vegas. Stern asks the NBA owners who should move to the East, and the head honcho of their group, Taylor, suggests MIN. Stern takes this as an opportunity to redesign the conferences to be closer in location, so MIN is in with MIL, CHI, CLE, etc. Moreover, Stern eliminates one round of the playoffs. Only eight teams make the play-offs .. each division winner, plus one wild card. Suddenly, each team nows exactly who's in their division because they have play-off races, and rivalries ensue.

Would rivalries make more money than the added sales from teams that now make the play-offs to get steamrolled in the first round? I don't know, but I think games would be more exciting.

shrink wrote:Seriously though, lack of rivalries is a problem for most NBA teams, stemming from the structure of the NBA's format. With 16 teams making the play-offs, rivalries don't often matter, and moreover, particularly in the western conference, teams are so far away geographically that rivalries are slight. I think that if they could develop rivalries better, it would be a method to increase NBA revenues.

This sounds right to me, definitely the wolves have no rivals. The proposed solution wasn't bad either.

Extra round of the play-offs means more revenue for the league, no way they'd drop that. Maybe a halfway point where only 6 teams per conference makes it, top 2 seeds get byes, and make the first round best of 5 again.

Sharing a division with OKC, Portland, Utah, and Denver isn't cool. I'm a proponent of just changing the divisions. It would be nice if Indiana, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Detroit were together.

john2jer wrote:Extra round of the play-offs means more revenue for the league, no way they'd drop that.

That's the balance. Rivalries would increase attendance but how much?

8 1st round play-off match-ups for at least 4-7 games = 32-56 games minimum .. lets say 44 fwhich is probably an over-estimation with some lop-sided match ups.

However, 82 games for 30 teams/ 2 teams per game = 1230 regular season games.

If rivalries increased attendance of those games by only 3.5%, then we'd reach a break-even number.

Moreover, I think that rivalries would generate revenues more than that, with a better NBA product overall.

shrink wrote:However, 82 games for 30 teams/ 2 teams per game = 1230 regular season games.

If rivalries increased attendance of those games by only 3.5%, then we'd reach a break-even number.

Yeah, but it's not like you're creating a rivalry between every team in the league. We're still gonna draw under 10,000 for a game against a team like the Hawks. Even if every team got a couple big rivals I don't see how it could come close to making up the loss of ~40 playoff games.

I think we should worry about breaking five hundred before getting a rival.

cpfsf wrote:Sharing a division with OKC, Portland, Utah, and Denver isn't cool. I'm a proponent of just changing the divisions. It would be nice if Indiana, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Detroit were together.

Yep I agree, wherever Chicago, Detroit & Milwaukee's Best are, we should be too.

shrink wrote:Seriously though, lack of rivalries is a problem for most NBA teams, stemming from the structure of the NBA's format. With 16 teams making the play-offs, rivalries don't often matter, and moreover, particularly in the western conference, teams are so far away geographically that rivalries are slight. I think that if they could develop rivalries better, it would be a method to increase NBA revenues.

In my dream world, a team like CHA gets bought out and moved to Vegas. Stern asks the NBA owners who should move to the East, and the head honcho of their group, Taylor, suggests MIN. Stern takes this as an opportunity to redesign the conferences to be closer in location, so MIN is in with MIL, CHI, CLE, etc. Moreover, Stern eliminates one round of the playoffs. Only eight teams make the play-offs .. each division winner, plus one wild card. Suddenly, each team nows exactly who's in their division because they have play-off races, and rivalries ensue.

Would rivalries make more money than the added sales from teams that now make the play-offs to get steamrolled in the first round? I don't know, but I think games would be more exciting.

Rivalries are not something that can be forced. They just develop over time.

I think what we are starting to see more in this league is individual rivalries more than the team rivalries. Fans are more interested in the individual than the team, these days. Thats why ratings are so low when you have better "teams" in the finals more than individuals. Teams like the Spurs and Pistons were built on the team concept. And both of those teams had lower Finals ratings.

The reason this year's finals ratings were low is because of all the Kobe-LeBron buildup throughout the playoffs, then it fizzled when Cleveland lost. Though its interesting the last time an NBA Finals had an average Nielsen rating of 10+ was 2004. That was Detroit-LA. Kobe was back in the Finals the year after SA-NJ, the lowest rated Finals since 1981.

What we need to look for are individual rivalries that can develop, not team rivalries.

I remember at one point in time, Denver and Sacramento were once considered rivals or at least enemies. But in my mind, Portland, Memphis, and OKC are our rivals, just due to recent history and similar situations.

jade_hippo wrote:I remember at one point in time, Denver and Sacramento were once considered rivals or at least enemies. But in my mind, Portland, Memphis, and OKC are our rivals, just due to recent history and similar situations.

I would have to agree. Possibly that team from Wisconsin that no one knows about too, especially now that they also have a rookie PG.

hard to be rivals with someone you see once and never will face in the playoffs.

casey wrote:

shrink wrote:However, 82 games for 30 teams/ 2 teams per game = 1230 regular season games.

If rivalries increased attendance of those games by only 3.5%, then we'd reach a break-even number.

Yeah, but it's not like you're creating a rivalry between every team in the league. We're still gonna draw under 10,000 for a game against a team like the Hawks. Even if every team got a couple big rivals I don't see how it could come close to making up the loss of ~40 playoff games.

Maybe you're right. You'd have rivalries between the other teams in your division if only one got to go to the playoffs, plus they were more regional. That would be 20 games a year, x 30 teams /2 teams per game means 300 against division rival games. Also, you may see a small increase in all other games, even games like ATL, because with only four teams making the play-offs, each game is more important. However, ignoring that, it'd still be like a 13% increase in attendance version division rivals.

I don't know either way. We do have a source for further evidence, if someone wants to do the legwork to back up their position. In MLB, with the addition of inter-league play, we have a test case where teams may play other teams that are local, but who don't have as strong effect on their play-off standings (regional vs competitive rivalries). It might be interesting to look at baseball and check the attendance for:

1. Interleague - close
2. Interleague - far
3. AL - not division
4. AL - within division (close?)

Did MIL games increase attendance over average games, even with no historic, sport-specific "rivalry?"