It would make sense for them, but it sucks for us. There was practically nothing on last night besides a game on ESPN, and local sports fans could have stumbled upon this great Hawks game by chance and given the hometeam a second look. As far as price, which isn't the only factor as you said, the Hawks should have flexible pricing like the Braves (f*ck them, btw) used last year. That way, less compelling matchups would simply cost less from the start. Tickets in my usual seat were nearly half-price for games vs. weak baseball teams. Since I tend to prefer Hawks games against no-name teams just to avoid the bandwagoners/hipsters/nuthuggers, I'd get to many more games if these matchups had their prices slashed. I paid $90 each for the homeopener against the Raptors, and based on the prices, I may not get to another game this season (unless I make it to London). Speaking of the Raptors, I made it to a Raptors-Nuggets game while I was in Toronto for Falcons-Bills, and it was a great crowd for a Sunday afternoon (the Maple Leafs had a road game the night before and weren't in town). In some towns, having a popular team, or a winning team (even if it was decades ago), is enough to win and maintain enough goodwill with the fanbase. Moral victories like taking big name teams to 7 games and playoff berths (when half of the NBA makes the playoffs) doesn't amount to much in a town with one title in 50 years and 1,000's of options any night of the week, especially during the holidays. Whether a factor is an excuse or a solid explanation is simply a matter of whether it supports or undermines your point of view. I know Atlantans aren't bad sports because I am an Atlantan and actually know Atlantans, unlike almost everyone that I hear bashing our fans, and that includes many people that call themselves "Atlantans."