If we don't make a move we're giving up on this season.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

That's nonsense. Check out the Celtics' attendance before the KG and Ray Allen trade. Besides Boston and the Lakers have dozens of titles between them so they have some equity to play with with fans. There is no excuse for us to be the only contending team nowhere near the Luxury Tax. Portland is half our market size, Lost 2 of their best players and they still make a move for Marcus Camby. They didn't say, we don't want to hurt chemistry, or that "we don't want to hurt Greg Oden's future development" They even know that there is no way they could beat the Lakers. But they know how to keep their fanbase energized. ASG haven't figured that out yet. They know nothing about the sports fan. They think that folks spend money for unlimited hotdogs and thos stupid dolls they parachute from the rafters.

Johnny, people have given you information on our financial situation, so you're simply being stubborn now about what we can and are willing to do.

As for Portland making the play for Camby . . . both Blake and Outlaw are expiring contracts ( 9 million dollars worth of expiring contracts ), so the Clippers aren't taking back extended contracts for letting Camby go. Portland is even giving them money to complete the deal. This is not hard to understand how and why the Clippers would accept a deal like that . . but not accept something like Zaza and Evans for Camby.

As good as Outlaw has been for Portland over the years, he becomes expendible when you have multiple people who can play his position. Same goes with Blake. So if you can trade those two to get a center ( a position of great need for them right now ), you definitely give those two up. This wasn't a deal to "keep their fanbase energized". They did that deal out of competitive necessity.

Oh . . by the way . . Portland is #1 in attendance so far this year. They're half the market size, but have drawn 161,000 more fans than we have. They have played 2 more home games than we have though.

What's no excuse, is for the Hawks to still be struggling at the gate, when they have a home winning percentage of 76% over the last 1.5 seasons ( 68 games ). The ownership has put a winning product on the floor at Philips. It's just that the casual Hawks fan isn't committed enough to see the team against the mediocre teams, like they do when the big boys come around.

[dlpin]

That's nonsense. Check out the Celtics' attendance before the KG and Ray Allen trade. Besides Boston and the Lakers have dozens of titles between them so they have some equity to play with with fans. There is no excuse for us to be the only contending team nowhere near the Luxury Tax. Portland is half our market size, Lost 2 of their best players and they still make a move for Marcus Camby. They didn't say, we don't want to hurt chemistry, or that "we don't want to hurt Greg Oden's future development" They even know that there is no way they could beat the Lakers. But they know how to keep their fanbase energized. ASG haven't figured that out yet. They know nothing about the sports fan. They think that folks spend money for unlimited hotdogs and thos stupid dolls they parachute from the rafters.

The hawks currently sell 85.6% of their seats in home games. The celtics have sold more than that every single season this past decade. Even in the 06-07 season with the celtics openly tanking to get Durant/Oden they still sold 90.4% of tickets.

[niremetal]

The hawks currently sell 85.6% of their seats in home games. The celtics have sold more than that every single season this past decade. Even in the 06-07 season with the celtics openly tanking to get Durant/Oden they still sold 90.4% of tickets.

And I love how he mentions market size as if it were the determinant of profits/revenues. Portland is 4th in average attendance this year; we're 20th. It's been 20 years since we sold more seats in a season than them (and before those 3 years, it hadn't happened at all since the Blazers had come into existence).

Portland is die hard about the Blazers, which is the only major professional sports team in town. Atlanta has 4 teams, and is (especially) indifferent about the Hawks. Throughout 4 Hawks ownership eras, it's held true. In the NBA, that trumps market size.

Edited February 16, 2010 by niremetal

[coachx]

And I love how he mentions market size as if it were the determinant of profits/revenues. Portland is 4th in average attendance this year; we're 20th. It's been more than 20 years since we sold more seats in a season than them (and before those 2 years, it hadn't happened at all since the Blazers had come into existence).

Portland is die hard about the Blazers, which is the only major professional sports team in town. Atlanta has 4 teams, and is (especially) indifferent about the Hawks. Throughout 4 Hawks ownership eras, it's held true. In the NBA, that trumps market size.

Here is one explanation as to why Portland fans are so loyal.

Portland has no MLB or NFL team.

All they have is their NBA franchise. That really helps generate fan loyalty.

In Atlanta you have baseball, football, and hockey to focus on if your basketball team is not performing. In Portland you have no other choices. Not to mention how college football rule the roost in the South.

Edited February 16, 2010 by coachx

[Johnnybravo4]

Yall are out of your mind if you think revenue comes from the tix. Money comes from local TV and radio and corporate sponsorships. Portland has Nike and a Microsoft owner. We have

Coke

Home Depot

UPS

Georgia Pacific

Waffle House

Racetrac

Equifax

BellSouth

And the Southern headquarters for pretty much every fortune 500 company in America.

Please. Saying that we couldn't compete with Portland because of attendance would be like saying that the Falcons cant compete with Green Bay for free agents because they don't sell out like the Pack do. They could sellout Phillips for 10 years straight and it wouldnt make a difference in the free agent bottom line. You think the Knicks care about selling out? They don't sell out and they had a 100 million dollar payroll. Its market size idiots. We can charge more for commercials than Portland can, thats the bottom line.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Johnnybravo4

[dlpin]

Yall are out of your mind if you think revenue comes from the tix. Money comes from local TV and radio and corporate sponsorships. Portland has Nike and a Microsoft owner. We have

Coke

Home Depot

UPS

Georgia Pacific

Waffle House

Racetrac

Equifax

BellSouth

And the Southern headquarters for pretty much every fortune 500 company in America.

Please. Saying that we couldn't compete with Portland because of attendance would be like saying that the Falcons cant compete with Green Bay for free agents because they don't sell out like the Pack do. They could sellout Phillips for 10 years straight and it wouldnt make a difference in the free agent bottom line. You think the Knicks care about selling out? They don't sell out and they had a 100 million dollar payroll. Its market size idiots. We can charge more for commercials than Portland can, thats the bottom line.

Of course ticket revenues matter a lot. First, they indicate local interest in the team. You can bet that the teams selling out games are the same that have the top local tv deals.

Second of all, there is the matter of ticket prices, and Atlanta is still one of the cheapest arenas:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/12031628

Haves Index Net ticket revenue/game

Lakers 214 $1.96 million

Knicks 181 $1.66 million

Celtics 147 $1.34 million

Suns 144 $1.31 million

Bulls 138 $1.26 million

League avg. 100 $912,953

Have-nots

Pacers 53 $484,105

Hawks 51 $466,794

Bucks 46 $415,450

Timberwolves 38 $350,118

Grizzlies 35 $322,105

The ticket revenue PER GAME of the hawks is almost one million dollars less than that of the celtics, and a million and a half less than of the lakers. There are 41 home games plus playoff games. The article doesn't list the blazers but they are over the million dollars a game mark. Do the math.

Edited February 16, 2010 by dlpin

[niremetal]

Yall are out of your mind if you think revenue comes from the tix. Money comes from local TV and radio and corporate sponsorships. Portland has Nike and a Microsoft owner. We have

Coke

Home Depot

UPS

Georgia Pacific

Waffle House

Racetrac

Equifax

BellSouth

And the Southern headquarters for pretty much every fortune 500 company in America.

Please. Saying that we couldn't compete with Portland because of attendance would be like saying that the Falcons cant compete with Green Bay for free agents because they don't sell out like the Pack do. They could sellout Phillips for 10 years straight and it wouldnt make a difference in the free agent bottom line. You think the Knicks care about selling out? They don't sell out and they had a 100 million dollar payroll. Its market size idiots. We can charge more for commercials than Portland can, thats the bottom line.

Atlanta also has 4 pro teams which said sponsors can advertise with and said TV stations can bid on, not to mention the two ACC/SEC sports teams in the Atlanta TV market. Also, most people who live in Atlanta were not born and raised here. Thus many pro basketball fans in Atlanta were raised as Knicks, Celtics, or Lakers fans.

Oh, and what is this, the 1930's? You think that only locally-HQed entities advertise? You don't think Coca-Cola and Delta advertise in the Pacific Northwest? You don't think the Aflac trivia question appears in Portland? And you don't think that Portland has utility and food service companies comparable to BellSouth, Georgia Pacific, and Waffle House? Oh, Portland also has Intel, Adidas America, and Columbia Sportswear, among many other big-name companies HQed there. But like most teams, most of the sponsorships come from national companies, not local ones.

And what do you think this is, pre-consolidation baseball? Most TV revenues for the NBA come not from locally broadcast games, but from nationally broadcast games during both the regular season and playoffs. Those revenues are shared equally amongst all the teams. Gate receipts are by FAR teams' largest revenue source that does not come from the collective league revenue pot.

In case you needed more proof, look at the Forbes data:

Portland made $121M in revenue last year, compared to $103M for Atlanta. Portland had $38M in gate receipts compared to $23M for Atlanta. In other words, the difference in ticket revenues DOES account for most of the difference between the two teams' revenues. Yes, Atlanta has ~2.5x as many people as Portland, but the Blazers' TV ratings were almost 4 times higher than the Hawks'. The Blazers' revenue per metro area fan is $37, compared to $11 for the Hawks.

Teams from cities where they are the only major pro sports team often are able to earn more money than teams from larger markets. It's why the Spurs, Jazz, and Blazers have consistently been among the most successful/valuable/profitable (or least-unprofitable) teams in the NBA despite coming from "small markets."

Simplifying it to market size is absurd. If it were that simple, the Suns would have failed miserably instead of thriving during the first 30 years of their existence. Calling us idiots for suggesting it's way more complicated than that makes you look like a fool.

Edited February 16, 2010 by niremetal

[coachx]

Of course ticket revenues matter a lot. First, they indicate local interest in the team. You can bet that the teams selling out games are the same that have the top local tv deals.

Second of all, there is the matter of ticket prices, and Atlanta is still one of the cheapest arenas:

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/12031628

Haves Index Net ticket revenue/game

Lakers 214 $1.96 million

Knicks 181 $1.66 million

Celtics 147 $1.34 million

Suns 144 $1.31 million

Bulls 138 $1.26 million

League avg. 100 $912,953

Have-nots

Pacers 53 $484,105

Hawks 51 $466,794

Bucks 46 $415,450

Timberwolves 38 $350,118

Grizzlies 35 $322,105

The ticket revenue PER GAME of the hawks is almost one million dollars less than that of the celtics, and a million and a half less than of the lakers. There are 41 home games plus playoff games. The article doesn't list the blazers but they are over the million dollars a game mark. Do the math.

Good find !

If we could simply get to the league average in ticket revenue per game it would nearly double our tricket revenue.

Lakers ticket revenue = $80.36 mill

Average NBA ticket revenue = $37.43 mill

Hawks ticket revenue = $19.13 mill

I wish it gave us a list of profits rather then gross revenue. The Hawks profits may look better since the ASG owns operating rights to Phillips Arena where most teams lease the arena they play in which I would assume is an increase to their operating expenses.

No question Atlanta sports fans simply suck.........for lack of a more accurate term.

Edited February 16, 2010 by coachx

[Johnnybravo4]

Atlanta also has 4 pro teams which said sponsors can advertise with and said TV stations can bid on, not to mention the two ACC/SEC sports teams in the Atlanta TV market. Also, most people who live in Atlanta were not born and raised here. Thus many pro basketball fans in Atlanta were raised as Knicks, Celtics, or Lakers fans.

Oh, and what is this, the 1930's? You think that only locally-HQed entities advertise? You don't think Coca-Cola and Delta advertise in the Pacific Northwest? You don't think the Aflac trivia question appears in Portland? And you don't think that Portland has utility and food service companies comparable to BellSouth, Georgia Pacific, and Waffle House? Oh, Portland also has Intel, Adidas America, and Columbia Sportswear, among many other big-name companies HQed there. But like most teams, most of the sponsorships come from national companies, not local ones.

And what do you think this is, pre-consolidation baseball? Most TV revenues for the NBA come not from locally broadcast games, but from nationally broadcast games during both the regular season and playoffs. Those revenues are shared equally amongst all the teams. Gate receipts are by FAR teams' largest revenue source that does not come from the collective league revenue pot.

In case you needed more proof, look at the Forbes data:

Portland made $121M in revenue last year, compared to $103M for Atlanta. Portland had $38M in gate receipts compared to $23M for Atlanta. In other words, the difference in ticket revenues DOES account for most of the difference between the two teams' revenues. Yes, Atlanta has ~2.5x as many people as Portland, but the Blazers' TV ratings were almost 4 times higher than the Hawks'. The Blazers' revenue per metro area fan is $37, compared to $11 for the Hawks.

Teams from cities where they are the only major pro sports team often are able to earn more money than teams from larger markets. It's why the Spurs, Jazz, and Blazers have consistently been among the most successful/valuable/profitable (or least-unprofitable) teams in the NBA despite coming from "small markets."

Simplifying it to market size is absurd. If it were that simple, the Suns would have failed miserably instead of thriving during the first 30 years of their existence. Calling us idiots for suggesting it's way more complicated than that makes you look like a fool.

What I am talking about is revenue potential. The point is that you have to spend money to money to make money. If you don't think teams like the Knicks don't make money from their local network you are out of your mind. The point is that you become popular if you win and spend money to win more. Hoping you win while spending the least amount possible guarantees that you will probably be avg. That is what the Braves haven't figured out in 20 years. Atlanta fans aren't stupid. They are not going to spend their hard earned money for a team that is likely a second round exit....especially if there are no superstars on the team.

[MVP23]

What in the hell do ticket sales and Tv contracts have to do with making a trade for a backup PG and a backup Center?

[dlpin]

What in the hell do ticket sales and Tv contracts have to do with making a trade for a backup PG and a backup Center?

Unless said back up PG and back up center play for free, everything.

[niremetal]

What I am talking about is revenue potential. The point is that you have to spend money to money to make money. If you don't think teams like the Knicks don't make money from their local network you are out of your mind. The point is that you become popular if you win and spend money to win more. Hoping you win while spending the least amount possible guarantees that you will probably be avg. That is what the Braves haven't figured out in 20 years. Atlanta fans aren't stupid. They are not going to spend their hard earned money for a team that is likely a second round exit....especially if there are no superstars on the team.

You just proved the point. Other cities have more fans that ARE willing to spend their hard-earned money to watch a team that is likely a second round exit (or even a first-round exit or even a non-playoff team), even if the team doesn't have a superstar. Every single Atlanta pro sports team has a history of finishing ranked lower in attendance than in the standings. The Braves couldn't sell out playoff games while the Indians - a team with an even worse track record of choking in the playoffs - had a multi-year streak where they sold out every single regular season AND playoff game. For the Hawks, they have ranked lower in attendance than in the standingsfor 29 of the past 30 years and 40 of the past 42 years - in other words, only twice in the entire history of the franchise have the Hawks finished higher in attendance than in the standings. Those two years were 1980-81 and 2004-2005, the latter of which was the year in which we had the league's worst record, but barely edged out Charlotte and New Orleans (ie the teams that were affected by the Hornets relocation fiasco) in attendance.

In other words, other cities have more fans that are willing to pay to watch teams worse than ours.

Edited February 16, 2010 by niremetal

[Johnnybravo4]

You just proved the point. Other cities have more fans that ARE willing to spend their hard-earned money to watch a team that is likely a second round exit (or even a first-round exit or even a non-playoff team), even if the team doesn't have a superstar. Every single Atlanta pro sports team has a history of finishing ranked lower in attendance than in the standings. The Braves couldn't sell out playoff games while the Indians - a team with an even worse track record of choking in the playoffs - had a multi-year streak where they sold out every single regular season AND playoff game. For the Hawks, they have ranked lower in attendance than in the standingsfor 29 of the past 30 years and 40 of the past 42 years - in other words, only twice in the entire history of the franchise have the Hawks finished higher in attendance than in the standings. Those two years were 1980-81 and 2004-2005, the latter of which was the year in which we had the league's worst record, but barely edged out Charlotte and New Orleans (ie the teams that were affected by the Hornets relocation fiasco) in attendance.

In other words, other cities have more fans that are willing to pay to watch teams worse than ours.

No one went to Red Sox games in the 90's when they sucked. The Yankees didn't sell out in the early 90's either. Nor did the Cavs or the Mavs for 90% of their existence. Now some teams luck out in the draft and like the Cavs drafted a superstar. But people like Cuban and Daniel Snyder know that it takes money to bring in the stars that it takes to sell out games. The Hawks haven't been to the Conference Finals their entire existence in this town. Just because you win a playoff series you are supposed to sell out like the Blazers who have been to finals or the Celtics who have 20 championships? Fans are smart enough to know that we are 0-6 against the Cavs and the Magic. Intelligence says that if we don't improve we wont win a series against either. And why would you spend money as a casual fan to see an inferior product?

Besides using your logic...how do you explain Miami? They are by far a worse sports town and they have a bigger payroll.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Johnnybravo4

[dlpin]

No one went to Red Sox games in the 90's when they sucked. The Yankees didn't sell out in the early 90's either. Nor did the Cavs or the Mavs for 90% of their existence. Now some teams luck out in the draft and like the Cavs drafted a superstar. But people like Cuban and Daniel Snyder know that it takes money to bring in the stars that it takes to sell out games. The Hawks haven't been to the Conference Finals their entire existence in this town. Just because you win a playoff series you are supposed to sell out like the Blazers who have been to finals or the Celtics who have 20 championships? Fans are smart enough to know that we are 0-6 against the Cavs and the Magic. Intelligence says that if we don't improve we wont win a series against either. And why would you spend money as a casual fan to see an inferior product?

No one went to the red sox games in the 90s when they sucked?

Funny,

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/rsoxatte.shtml

Since 1967 there was only one season (1997) when the red sox were below the AL average in attendance. And even then it was just a little bit.

Cavs, Heat and Mavs attendance?

Better than the hawks in almost every year:

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=ATL&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=DAL&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=CLE&lg=n

http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=MIA&lg=n

Edited February 16, 2010 by dlpin

[macdaddy]

Atlanta fans don't show up because they are just jerks who don't want to see a basketball game? If you have an entertainment product its your job to sell it to the people. You don't think movie execs can pull the 'well no one went to the movie i made because movie fans just suck'

Bottom line is our attendence is not good considering we are a good team. Lots of reasons have been floated (traffic, demographics, uncomfortable seats) but bottom line is people would show up if they cared that much. When opposing players that they care about come to town they show up. Well here's a thought: why not find a player that we can get the Atlanta fans to care about. Heck the Braves have the same problem but at least they try to put a face on the franchise, Chipper, Cox. The casual Atlanta sports fan couldn't tell you who the Hawks marquee player is or who went to the All Star game. To get fans to come out you have to win AND you have to sell the team and the experience. The average consumer doesn't care about basketball. They care about the drama, the personalities, the storylines. Sounds girly but its true. You're watching to see how it all plays out. There is not an emotional attachment to this team for most Atlanta fans.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You just proved the point. Other cities have more fans that ARE willing to spend their hard-earned money to watch a team that is likely a second round exit (or even a first-round exit or even a non-playoff team), even if the team doesn't have a superstar. Every single Atlanta pro sports team has a history of finishing ranked lower in attendance than in the standings. The Braves couldn't sell out playoff games while the Indians - a team with an even worse track record of choking in the playoffs - had a multi-year streak where they sold out every single regular season AND playoff game. For the Hawks, they have ranked lower in attendance than in the standingsfor 29 of the past 30 years and 40 of the past 42 years - in other words, only twice in the entire history of the franchise have the Hawks finished higher in attendance than in the standings. Those two years were 1980-81 and 2004-2005, the latter of which was the year in which we had the league's worst record, but barely edged out Charlotte and New Orleans (ie the teams that were affected by the Hornets relocation fiasco) in attendance.

In other words, other cities have more fans that are willing to pay to watch teams worse than ours.

Well said.

What JB calls "smart" . . is actually the very definition of being a bandwagon fan base. For the most part, we're a passionless fan base.

[niremetal]

No one went to Red Sox games in the 90's when they sucked. The Yankees didn't sell out in the early 90's either. Nor did the Cavs or the Mavs for 90% of their existence. Now some teams luck out in the draft and like the Cavs drafted a superstar. But people like Cuban and Daniel Snyder know that it takes money to bring in the stars that it takes to sell out games. The Hawks haven't been to the Conference Finals their entire existence in this town. Just because you win a playoff series you are supposed to sell out like the Blazers who have been to finals or the Celtics who have 20 championships? Fans are smart enough to know that we are 0-6 against the Cavs and the Magic. Intelligence says that if we don't improve we wont win a series against either. And why would you spend money as a casual fan to see an inferior product?

Besides using your logic...how do you explain Miami? They are by far a worse sports town and they have a bigger payroll.

Says who? You? You've been talking out of your rear iris this whole time, and you keep proving it. dlpin took care of the baseball, so I'll do the basketball.

The Heat actually are ranked higher in average attendance right now (16th) than in the standings (18th). The Hawks are the opposite - they are 6th in the standings and 20th in attendance. That's the biggest such gap in the NBA.

Throughout their 22-year existence, the Heat have sold more tickets than the Hawks, including throughout the 1990's when the Hawks consistently had a better record and made deeper playoff runs:

1988-89

Heat: 15-67 (27th in NBA), 12th in attendance = +15

Hawks: 52-30 (6th in NBA), 11th in attendance = -5

1989-90

Heat: 18-64 (26th in NBA), 14th in attendance = +12

Hawks: 41-41 (T-16th in NBA), 17th in attendance = -1

1990-91

Heat: 28-54 (26th in NBA), 15th in attendance = +11

Hawks: 52-30 (13th in NBA), 19th in attendance = -6

1991-92

Heat: 38-44 (T-17th in NBA), 15th in attendance = +2

Hawks: 38-44 (T-17th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -10

1992-93

Heat: 36-46 (T-20th in NBA), 17th in attendance = +3

Hawks: 43-39 (12th in NBA), 27th in attendance (worst in NBA) = -15

1993-94

Heat: 42-40 (T-16th in NBA), 16th in attendance = 0

Hawks: 57-25 (T-3rd in NBA), 21st in attendance = -18

1994-95

Heat: 32-50 (20th in NBA), 22nd in attendance = -2

Hawks: 42-40 (14th in NBA), 26th in attendance = -12

1995-96

Heat: 42-40 (14th in NBA), 25th in attendance = -11

Hawks: 46-36 (T-11th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -16

FAST FORWARD 12 YEARS (YOU CAN CHECK IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, BUT THE TREND WAS THE SAME WITH 1 EXCEPTION, THE 2004-2005 SEASON)

2007-08

Heat: 15-67 (worst in NBA - albeit 2 years after a title), 8th in attendance = +22

Hawks: 37-45 (19th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -1

2008-09

Heat: 43-39 (14th in NBA), 15th in attendance = -1

Hawks: 47-35 (12th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -6

This year to date

Heat: 26-27 (18th in NBA), 16th in attendance = +2

Hawks: 33-18 (6th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -14

As I said, it's not isolated to the Hawks. The Braves and Falcons also do worse in attendance than they do in the standings.

I know you're just going to keep talking out of your *ss, but there is no serious way to dispute that the gap between Atlanta teams' records and their attendance. They don't show up in the same numbers when the teams win, and they stop showing up much more quickly when the teams lose.

Edited February 16, 2010 by niremetal

[TheNorthCydeRises]

No one went to Red Sox games in the 90's when they sucked. The Yankees didn't sell out in the early 90's either. Nor did the Cavs or the Mavs for 90% of their existence. Now some teams luck out in the draft and like the Cavs drafted a superstar. But people like Cuban and Daniel Snyder know that it takes money to bring in the stars that it takes to sell out games. The Hawks haven't been to the Conference Finals their entire existence in this town. Just because you win a playoff series you are supposed to sell out like the Blazers who have been to finals or the Celtics who have 20 championships? Fans are smart enough to know that we are 0-6 against the Cavs and the Magic. Intelligence says that if we don't improve we wont win a series against either. And why would you spend money as a casual fan to see an inferior product?

Besides using your logic...how do you explain Miami? They are by far a worse sports town and they have a bigger payroll.

Inferior product? Well damn Johnny, if that's the case, move the Hawks out of Atlanta. If that's the mentality of the casual fan in ATL, move the Hawks to Cincinnati or Kansas City or better yet, move them to Seattle .

LOL @ an inferior product. Why? Because we're a bad matchup against two teams?

We are a top 7 team in the NBA . . . Top 7.

We have one of the best home records in the NBA.

We are 52 - 16 in our last 68 home games. ( 76% win percentage )

But because we've struggled against 2 teams, that's reason enough to not pay money to see them at all?

Move the team out of Atlanta then.

If the casual fan STILL stays away, despite our drastic improvement the past 2 - 3 years, what does that tell management? That they should spend MORE money, in order to put a better product on the floor . . even though the bandwagon fans STILL won't show up on nights in which we don't play a top team?

We're lucky the ASG is willing to spend up to the luxury tax threshhold in the first place.

[Plainview1981]

Well, it's a no win situation. That's what makes it tough to truly get excited. Yeah, I don't go to games... But even if I did it wouldn't make a difference long term.

[Johnnybravo4]

Says who? You? You've been talking out of your rear iris this whole time, and you keep proving it. dlpin took care of the baseball, so I'll do the basketball.

The Heat actually are ranked higher in average attendance right now (16th) than in the standings (18th). The Hawks are the opposite - they are 6th in the standings and 20th in attendance. That's the biggest such gap in the NBA.

Throughout their 22-year existence, the Heat have sold more tickets than the Hawks, including throughout the 1990's when the Hawks consistently had a better record and made deeper playoff runs:

1988-89

Heat: 15-67 (27th in NBA), 12th in attendance = +15

Hawks: 52-30 (6th in NBA), 11th in attendance = -5

1989-90

Heat: 18-64 (26th in NBA), 14th in attendance = +12

Hawks: 41-41 (T-16th in NBA), 17th in attendance = -1

1990-91

Heat: 28-54 (26th in NBA), 15th in attendance = +11

Hawks: 52-30 (13th in NBA), 19th in attendance = -6

1991-92

Heat: 38-44 (T-17th in NBA), 15th in attendance = +2

Hawks: 38-44 (T-17th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -10

1992-93

Heat: 36-46 (T-20th in NBA), 17th in attendance = +3

Hawks: 43-39 (12th in NBA), 27th in attendance (worst in NBA) = -15

1993-94

Heat: 42-40 (T-16th in NBA), 16th in attendance = 0

Hawks: 57-25 (T-3rd in NBA), 21st in attendance = -18

1994-95

Heat: 32-50 (20th in NBA), 22nd in attendance = -2

Hawks: 42-40 (14th in NBA), 26th in attendance = -12

1995-96

Heat: 42-40 (14th in NBA), 25th in attendance = -11

Hawks: 46-36 (T-11th in NBA), 27th in attendance = -16

FAST FORWARD 12 YEARS (YOU CAN CHECK IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, BUT THE TREND WAS THE SAME WITH 1 EXCEPTION, THE 2004-2005 SEASON)

2007-08

Heat: 15-67 (worst in NBA - albeit 2 years after a title), 8th in attendance = +22

Hawks: 37-45 (19th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -1

2008-09

Heat: 43-39 (14th in NBA), 15th in attendance = -1

Hawks: 47-35 (12th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -6

This year to date

Heat: 26-27 (18th in NBA), 16th in attendance = +2

Hawks: 33-18 (6th in NBA), 20th in attendance = -14

As I said, it's not isolated to the Hawks. The Braves and Falcons also do worse in attendance than they do in the standings.

I know you're just going to keep talking out of your *ss, but there is no serious way to dispute that the gap between Atlanta teams' records and their attendance. They don't show up in the same numbers when the teams win, and they stop showing up much more quickly when the teams lose.

You conveniently skipped 2001-2006. The Heat before Wade never drew. When Wade was a rookie and made the playoffs they didn't draw. They only drew when they decided to spend money to bring in Shaq in a trade and then resign him. When they try to clear payroll for 2010 they became an avg team and guess what, they stopped being a top 10 team in attendance. When they bring in Chris Bosh next year guess what they'll draw again because the fan base will realize that their serious. I guarantee that if we brought in a Harris or a Stoudamire we'd sell out the rest of the season. Especially a stoudamire.