why did basketball only reach limited popularity in most countries?

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,292
And1: 22,301
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: why did basketball only reach limited popularity in most countries? 

Post#81 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Apr 11, 2022 6:31 pm

Jaivl wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Jaivl wrote:And if anything, current tendencies in urbanism should free *more* space in the States in the long run.


Please elaborate. Are you saying that current tendencies in urbanism is a move away from urbanism due to remote work or what?

Latest trends in urbanism lean more towards walkabilty and green space instead of maximizing capacity.

I'm very, very far from an expert in USA urbanism, but as far as I know, it's one of the regions with the most potential for improvement in that front, being mostly either middle class sprawls (where you do have some space, but that space is compartmentalized hence not really suited to football) or very congested urban areas with high-capacity roads (can't really play football next to a road).

Or maybe urbanism has nothing to do with it, NYC is the megacity with the highest proportion of green space to built-up area, after all. I do have the hunch that the distribution is not ideal despite having so much raw space, I have not really looked into it, this is just a quick thought, but maybe my reasoning is missing something.

Or maybe the USA ignores worldwide engineering trends... again... and my point is moot.


So, a quick search says that there are 1800 publicly maintained basketball courts in NYC, which has an area of about 1200 square kilometers. I doubt their number includes all the gymnasiums in the area, so an estimate of 2 courts per square km is probably about right.

In London, which I'd expect is the traditional standard for max-urban soccer, a quick search says that there are 210 in the London area, and London has an area of about 1500 square km. So we're talking about something that might be 0.2 pitches per square km.

So we're talking about 10X more basketball opportunity in NYC compared to soccer opportunity in London despite the fact that London got started with this stuff earlier.

Whatever the greenspace trends, I don't think they any of that matters all that much compared to the sheer size difference between a standard court and a standard pitch in something like an apples-to-apples comparison where the city has decided to invest in these sports.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
User avatar
Jaivl
Head Coach
Posts: 7,052
And1: 6,714
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: why did basketball only reach limited popularity in most countries? 

Post#82 » by Jaivl » Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:05 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Jaivl wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Please elaborate. Are you saying that current tendencies in urbanism is a move away from urbanism due to remote work or what?

Latest trends in urbanism lean more towards walkabilty and green space instead of maximizing capacity.

I'm very, very far from an expert in USA urbanism, but as far as I know, it's one of the regions with the most potential for improvement in that front, being mostly either middle class sprawls (where you do have some space, but that space is compartmentalized hence not really suited to football) or very congested urban areas with high-capacity roads (can't really play football next to a road).

Or maybe urbanism has nothing to do with it, NYC is the megacity with the highest proportion of green space to built-up area, after all. I do have the hunch that the distribution is not ideal despite having so much raw space, I have not really looked into it, this is just a quick thought, but maybe my reasoning is missing something.

Or maybe the USA ignores worldwide engineering trends... again... and my point is moot.


So, a quick search says that there are 1800 publicly maintained basketball courts in NYC, which has an area of about 1200 square kilometers. I doubt their number includes all the gymnasiums in the area, so an estimate of 2 courts per square km is probably about right.

In London, which I'd expect is the traditional standard for max-urban soccer, a quick search says that there are 210 in the London area, and London has an area of about 1500 square km. So we're talking about something that might be 0.2 pitches per square km.

So we're talking about 10X more basketball opportunity in NYC compared to soccer opportunity in London despite the fact that London got started with this stuff earlier.

Whatever the greenspace trends, I don't think they any of that matters all that much compared to the sheer size difference between a standard court and a standard pitch in something like an apples-to-apples comparison where the city has decided to invest in these sports.

The point is that you don't need a pitch to play football, though, you just need some car-free space - trees and jerseys become goalposts. When I was a kid, everybody started playing football in the park or at home or in the school's playground, not in a pitch - and that's in northern Spain, nevermind Brazil or Argentina.

Then again, it's probably a massive reach still.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,292
And1: 22,301
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: why did basketball only reach limited popularity in most countries? 

Post#83 » by Doctor MJ » Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:24 pm

Jaivl wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Jaivl wrote:Latest trends in urbanism lean more towards walkabilty and green space instead of maximizing capacity.

I'm very, very far from an expert in USA urbanism, but as far as I know, it's one of the regions with the most potential for improvement in that front, being mostly either middle class sprawls (where you do have some space, but that space is compartmentalized hence not really suited to football) or very congested urban areas with high-capacity roads (can't really play football next to a road).

Or maybe urbanism has nothing to do with it, NYC is the megacity with the highest proportion of green space to built-up area, after all. I do have the hunch that the distribution is not ideal despite having so much raw space, I have not really looked into it, this is just a quick thought, but maybe my reasoning is missing something.

Or maybe the USA ignores worldwide engineering trends... again... and my point is moot.


So, a quick search says that there are 1800 publicly maintained basketball courts in NYC, which has an area of about 1200 square kilometers. I doubt their number includes all the gymnasiums in the area, so an estimate of 2 courts per square km is probably about right.

In London, which I'd expect is the traditional standard for max-urban soccer, a quick search says that there are 210 in the London area, and London has an area of about 1500 square km. So we're talking about something that might be 0.2 pitches per square km.

So we're talking about 10X more basketball opportunity in NYC compared to soccer opportunity in London despite the fact that London got started with this stuff earlier.

Whatever the greenspace trends, I don't think they any of that matters all that much compared to the sheer size difference between a standard court and a standard pitch in something like an apples-to-apples comparison where the city has decided to invest in these sports.

The point is that you don't need a pitch to play football, though, you just need some car-free space - trees and jerseys become goalposts. When I was a kid, everybody started playing football in the park or at home or in the school's playground, not in a pitch - and that's in northern Spain, nevermind Brazil or Argentina.

Then again, it's probably a massive reach still.


Ah, I see.

Well as I've said before: Football is the gold standard when it comes to just making use of available space, it's just that if you want to play in a way that actually scales to the professional level, you probably need more than that. A sport that is played in an official way using less space (you can fit what, 6 NBA courts in one regulation football pitch?) and requiring less people is going to have an easier time extending its talent pool as long nothing else stands in the way. Yes there's the disadvantage of needing a 10 foot tall hoop, but this is not a very expensive thing in the grand scheme of things.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!

Return to Player Comparisons