Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

9/27 - Louisville talk
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=108694		 Page 3 of 5
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The one and dones are what move meters though. Let's compare midnight madness of Kentucky with that of UIC or Chicago State. Doubt they have one. You remove the NBA prospects from the equation and college basketball goes in the toilet overnight.

The notion of the "Cinderella" goes out the window too. Playing field becomes a lot more leveled.

College basketball must have sucked and had no one watching before they stopped players from going right to the NBA over a decade ago. :roll:

No cindrella teams before 2005 :roll:


It actually wasn't that good then either. Dee Brown was considered an elite player around that time.

College Basketball has been rather shitty for about 17 or 18 years now.

No wonder it's bringing in more money for the NCAA than football... :roll:
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
long time guy wrote:
The one and dones are what move meters though. Let's compare midnight madness of Kentucky with that of UIC or Chicago State. Doubt they have one. You remove the NBA prospects from the equation and college basketball goes in the toilet overnight.

The notion of the "Cinderella" goes out the window too. Playing field becomes a lot more leveled.

College basketball must have sucked and had no one watching before they stopped players from going right to the NBA over a decade ago. :roll:

No cindrella teams before 2005 :roll:


It actually wasn't that good then either. Dee Brown was considered an elite player around that time.

College Basketball has been rather shitty for about 17 or 18 years now.

No wonder it's bringing in more money for the NCAA than football... :roll:


By that logic the NBA must be gold then. Franchises going for 2 Bil with the best players checking between 40-50 mil a year. All I ever hear on this board is how no one cares about the NBA.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
People don't watch amateur athletics for world class athletes. They watch for the passion and excitement. There's a limit, though, and that limit is right above any women's sports.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.
Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
College basketball, which drew more attention than the coked-out tape-delayed NBA, only got big because of Chris Webber?
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I'm no basketball expert. But in LTGs defense look at the draft. After the top three it's a complete crapshoot to find NBA stars.


I think the top 10 players this year were all 1 and dones. What does that say about all this high impact with that being the case?


He just stated that one and dones haven't effected college that much.

The number one pick didn't even make the NCAA tournament. The NBA drafts on potential which makes it a horrible judge of how good or bad a college player is.

It's actually a credit to college basketball that most one and dones don't dominate.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Curious Hair wrote:
College basketball, which drew more attention than the coked-out tape-delayed NBA, only got big because of Chris Webber?



Are you that ignorant of what the Fab Five accomplished? i also named 3 guys older than Webber.

I also never said that it only got big because of Webber either. That's false.
Author:  leashyourkids [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.


Yeah, I feel the same way, but I still think there are many who still do out of loyalty.
Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
While I am no fan of college football for a number of reasons, I appreciate college basketball's place in the greater sports ecosystem and I don't want it to suck.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.

Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Curious Hair wrote:
While I am no fan of college football for a number of reasons, I appreciate college basketball's place in the greater sports ecosystem and I don't want it to suck.


I don't want it to suck either. I grew up as much more of a college fan but I think around the late 90's it lost its appeal. High School to the pros then one and done was it for me.

3 and 4 year guys only staying because they couldn't go pro.

High School to pros/one and dones are to College Basketball what the Suds from high end beer are to malt liquor!
Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.

Well, I think it is fair to be a bit concerned about attendance in the mid-majors. DePaul is in a major conference and they've been drawing crowds in the 2,000s for years.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Curious Hair wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.

Well, I think it is fair to be a bit concerned about attendance in the mid-majors. DePaul is in a major conference and they've been drawing crowds in the 2,000s for years.

True but it's how most league's besides the NFL work. The consistently bad teams have poor attendance.

Penn State can't get anyone to go either.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.

Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.



You're cherry picking too. The vast majority of College teams aren't drawing the crowds that N.C. or Kentucky draw. Nowhere near.
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.

Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.

Seriously. When I was at Purdue, I decided I would give the NBA an honest try and went to some Pacers-Bulls games at what was then Conseco Fieldhouse. After going from a Purdue-Wisconsin game with the Paint Crew to that environment was a snoozefest. I think I fell asleep in the 4th quarter of one of the games.

I also think Purdue's packed Mackey Arena (with a Paint Crew camping out in 15 degree weather overnight for the best seats) had more fans crammed into its sold out 14,123 capacity limit than the NBA game.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.

Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.



You're cherry picking too. The vast majority of College teams aren't drawing the crowds that N.C. or Kentucky draw. Nowhere near.

Well Kentucky outdraws every NBA team so that isn't a shock. NC does pretty well.

Your problem is you want to act like we should treat Chicago State as the same as every other team. There are major differences.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.

Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.

Seriously. When I was at Purdue, I decided I would give the NBA an honest try and went to some Pacers-Bulls games at what was then Conseco Fieldhouse. After going from a Purdue-Wisconsin game with the Paint Crew to that environment was a snoozefest. I think I fell asleep in the 4th quarter of one of the games.

I also think Purdue's packed Mackey Arena (with a Paint Crew camping out in 15 degree weather overnight for the best seats) had more fans crammed into its sold out 14,123 capacity limit than the NBA game.


Yeah they will have 14000 drunk drugged out college kids wilding out but the product on the court will more than likely suck. There are some cities that are rabid about the NBA. Some of them are losing teams historically. Warriors up until 3 years ago were that team. OKC's fans are loud too. Sacramento also. Product on the court has been crappy but their fans are loyal. NBA probably can't compete with that but it's difficult to create that vibe with the type of fans that attend NBA games.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Disagree. College hoops took off because of guys like Jordan Ewing Akeem and Webber. Those guys were phenoms. As first year college guys they were considered good Webber only stayed 2 others 3 or more. By the time they vacated they were ready to step into the NBA and contribute immediately. That means that by the time they exited college they were dominant college players. The very best college players today aren't dominant. There probably is a greater excitement surrounding it but I didn't watch college basketball because some barechested dude with blue paint decided to make an ass out of himself in the stands. I watched it because very talented guys played the game at a reasonably high level.

For the record it was exciting then also.


You're being hyperbolic. If people watched solely for great athletes who transcended the sport, they would only watch a few schools. No one is watching Illinois/Northwestern on a Tuesday to see future NBA stars.


I don't think too many are watching Illinois at all these days. Depaul either. Have you checked Loyola or UIC's attendance over the past 20 years? UIC has more fans in their stadium for a high school shootout than for its own team.

I'm really speaking for myself. 95% of College Basketball isn't very good. Games are poorly played and the guys aren't particularly talented. I probably would watch more if I didn't have the pass but when presented with the option of watching an NBA game or a college game the choice is easy.

Check most of the Big Tens attendance rather than UIC and Loyola. :lol: That's some egregious cherry picking.



You're cherry picking too. The vast majority of College teams aren't drawing the crowds that N.C. or Kentucky draw. Nowhere near.

Well Kentucky outdraws every NBA team so that isn't a shock. NC does pretty well.

Your problem is you want to act like we should treat Chicago State as the same as every other team. There are major differences.


Most college team attendance is closer to Chicago State than it is Kentucky. Nebraska avg 15000 fans and they were 11th ranked Nationally in attendance. That's not all that outstanding.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
NBA avg 17,000 fans per game.

Highest ranked conf in terms of avg attendance (Big Ten) avg 12,000.

NCAA attendance also is on the decline.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... top-draws/

NBA has broken attendance records over the past 3 seasons.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Huh? The Lakers were 11th in attendance and averaged 18,949. It's not like any basketball stadiums are huge. I don't know why you would expect high average attendance when most schools are in low population numbers and the fan bases ate much more segmented because of so many more teams.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
NBA avg 17,000 fans per game.

Highest ranked conf in terms of avg attendance (Big Ten) avg 12,000.

NCAA attendance also is on the decline.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... top-draws/

NBA has broken attendance records over the past 3 seasons.
Yeah. Most NBA stadiums are a little bigger. That's because there are a lot more teams. If Indiana had one college basketball team instead of four major ones I'm sure they'd have a stadium bigger than the Pacers.

Anyways, the point is that citing UIC and Loyola attendance is stupid.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Huh? The Lakers were 11th in attendance and averaged 18,949. It's not like any basketball stadiums are huge. I don't know why you would expect high average attendance when most schools are in low population numbers and the fan bases ate much more segmented because of so many more teams.


So attendance is important until it doesn't coincide with the narrative. NBA attendance should be lower if you and others are to be believed. Much higher ticket prices and far more games.

If people are as unenthusiastic about it as you often suggest then why are they willing to pay ticket prices that are much higher? That doesn't quite jive with the lower level of excitement and enthusiasm argument.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
NBA avg 17,000 fans per game.

Highest ranked conf in terms of avg attendance (Big Ten) avg 12,000.

NCAA attendance also is on the decline.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... top-draws/

NBA has broken attendance records over the past 3 seasons.
Yeah. Most NBA stadiums are a little bigger. That's because there are a lot more teams. If Indiana had one college basketball team instead of four major ones I'm sure they'd have a stadium bigger than the Pacers.

Anyways, the point is that citing UIC and Loyola attendance is stupid.



You'd have no problem citing Nets or Hawks attendance to advance your point however. Loyola is a college team and so is UIC. even when you factor in power 5 conf the NBA still murders them in attendance.

You were quite comfortable citing Kentucky as being typical of most college attendance. Once Kentucky was demonstrated to be an outlier you did the classic Brick pivot move. Truck Robinson would be proud.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Huh? The Lakers were 11th in attendance and averaged 18,949. It's not like any basketball stadiums are huge. I don't know why you would expect high average attendance when most schools are in low population numbers and the fan bases ate much more segmented because of so many more teams.


So attendance is important until it doesn't coincide with the narrative. NBA attendance should be lower if you and others are to be believed. Much higher ticket prices and far more games.

If people are as unenthusiastic about it as you often suggest then why are they willing to pay ticket prices that are much higher? That doesn't quite jive with the lower level of excitement and enthusiasm.

You brought up attendance.

It's obvious why average attendance is higher in the NBA. The Big Ten alone has nearly as many teams as the Eastern Conference.
Author:  Brick [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
NBA avg 17,000 fans per game.

Highest ranked conf in terms of avg attendance (Big Ten) avg 12,000.

NCAA attendance also is on the decline.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-baske ... top-draws/

NBA has broken attendance records over the past 3 seasons.
Yeah. Most NBA stadiums are a little bigger. That's because there are a lot more teams. If Indiana had one college basketball team instead of four major ones I'm sure they'd have a stadium bigger than the Pacers.

Anyways, the point is that citing UIC and Loyola attendance is stupid.



You'd have no problem citing Nets or Hawks attendance to advance your point however. Loyola is a college team and so is UIC. even when you factor in power 5 conf the NBA still murders them in attendance.

You were quite comfortable citing Kentucky as being typical of most college attendance. Once Kentucky was demonstrated to be an outlier you did the classic Brick pivot move. Truck Robinson would be proud.

You brought up Kentucky. :lol:
Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Put the Pacers in West Lafayette, a town or 30 something thousands and see if they draw 14,000 fans a night as Purdue does.
Author:  long time guy [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Huh? The Lakers were 11th in attendance and averaged 18,949. It's not like any basketball stadiums are huge. I don't know why you would expect high average attendance when most schools are in low population numbers and the fan bases ate much more segmented because of so many more teams.


So attendance is important until it doesn't coincide with the narrative. NBA attendance should be lower if you and others are to be believed. Much higher ticket prices and far more games.

If people are as unenthusiastic about it as you often suggest then why are they willing to pay ticket prices that are much higher? That doesn't quite jive with the lower level of excitement and enthusiasm.

You brought up attendance.

It's obvious why average attendance is higher in the NBA. The Big Ten alone has nearly as many teams as the Eastern Conference.



Because it's relevant. It's dumb to continuously argue about the enthusiasm inherent in college basketball then choose to ignore the attendance of schools like Depaul. They are part of College Basketball. Again NBA ticket prices are much higher yet they have a much higher avg attendance. That is also relevant
Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 9/27 - Louisville talk
I think I would rather go to a college game than an NBA game. NBA games don't seem terribly fun to be at.
Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/