SI's Thomsen illuminates main head-scratchers of the CBA dispute

[sturt]

And North, why do you suppose that is?

Maybe... because the customer recognizes that how money is spent on payroll has a direct bearing on the fans' likelihood of enjoyment... maybe?

It just so happens that our interests as fans, then, run more parallel to the interests of the team than to the interests of individual players.

And that will continue to be the case as long as this is a... team... sport. Our loyalties over the years are for our teams, and individual players are only temporary employees who we engage for some period of time.

[Trueblood]

And North, why do you suppose that is?

Maybe... because the customer recognizes that how money is spent on payroll has a direct bearing on the fans' likelihood of enjoyment... maybe?

It just so happens that our interests as fans, then, run more parallel to the interests of the team than to the interests of individual players.

And that will continue to be the case as long as this is a... team... sport. Our loyalties over the years are for our teams, and individual players are only temporary employees who we engage for some period of time.

This is true. Players come and go but our overall devotion is to the organization and the city it represents. Something Lebron didn't get when he talked about "Lebron fans" will continue to be Lebron fans, not realizing that sports fans base their loyalties on team over individual.

I checked your link and that's some good, out of the box thinking. Idealistically, it's a good plan but the union will never go for it. Unfortunately, it's a non starter for them. They want to have some sort of idea of what they'll be making so they can finance accordingly. If they are an all star in year 1 and get the 25% that you laid out, that will make them happy but if they get hurt in year 2 and drop to the 2% level or whatever, they won't be too happy and it will make for a non starter at negotiations.

With the 2 or 3 year out rule, it gives them 2 or 3 years worth or money to figure out how to finance things but at the same time, it's just short enough to force them to have incentive to play hard and within the team structure that you pointed out, so that they get another deal and then hopefully another deal on top of that.

[Trueblood]

( crying )

The poor owners don't know how to spend their money correctly, so they have to be saved from themselves.

Look at what is going on in the NHL. Christian Ehrhoff of the Buffalo Sabres signed a 10 YEAR - 40 million dollar contract. Now why would a team sign a player to a contract like that, for that long?

Well for one, the contract is frontloaded like hell. He'll get 10 million next season, and 8 million the season after that. Next, because it's a 10/40 deal, the cap hit will only be 4 million a year. Even though he's 29, you keep one of their best and most popular players on the team. But some of you guys want to let these owners off the hooks for making these types of deals with star players?

Why let the Knicks off the hook for a contract like Eddy Curry, when they themselves REFUSED to play the kid and MAKE him earn his money? Or the Wizards off the hook for acquiring Rashard Lewis?

If these teams are dumb enough to continue to do this, I say let them do it . .and LET THEM SUFFER. No one is forcing these owners to make these types of deals. So why penalize the player for not "living up to the deal"? It's funny, when players want to re-negotiate their contract or ask for more money, fans have a fit. But if it's the other way around, fans seem to be cool with it.

My idea of giving the owners ONE contract to opt out of every 5 years is in the best interest of compromise. We have posters that will side with players and others who side with the owners but want what's not only best for us fans but what both sides will realistically agree to. The opt out one guy per 5 years plan allows for owners to get out from mistakes that are impossible to see coming but at the same time saves the remainder of the roster from getting cut.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Trueblood

[sturt]

Blood, I'm only advocating what in our best interests as fans... that is the theme... if the consensus of fans got behind something like this and demanded a system that prioritizes by a 75-25 split recent performance over familiarity, the union really wouldn't the political capital to constitute viable protest.

My sense, fwiw, is that our problem is that too many fans are either disengaged or are so anti-owner or otherwise pro-union that they fail to recognize where their own interests lie.

And by the way... appreciate you taking a look at the model I put forward.

[dlpin]

The current CBA is a monstrosity of convoluted exceptions and caveats... give it 20 years and it might even begin rivaling the US tax code.

As for Lakers versus Grizzlies?

Which team would you imagine has more money to spend than any other in the NFL, and thus under dlpin's premise, ought to be picking up every free agent they want when they want...?

Many of us would knee-jerkedly say "Cowboys, of course."

And is that the case?

No.

And does the NFL have a hard cap?

Yes.

How about baseball... which team ought to be picking up every free agent they want when they want...?

Yankees, of course.

And is that the case?

Usually.

And does MLB have a hard cap?

Anything but.

What lessons do we learn?

We learn that the harder the cap, the less likely it is that a team can manipulate free agency to give themselves advantage.

Which is why I differentiated between salary team restrictions and individual contract team restrictions.

Would Bosh and Lebron have gone to Miami if instead of leaving a couple of million on the table, they were leaving 5 to 10 million a year? People talk about Jordan not leaving the bulls, but a good part of that is that the bulls were able to make him the best player in the nba by far. Would Amare and Anthony have gone to the knicks if their former teams were allowed to offer as much as they wanted, provided the total bill game under a teamwide cap?

Small market teams only beat big market teams for free agents when they can offer more money or other incentives.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Well Trueblood . . we might as well have it the other way then. If a young player turns into a superstar within his 1st or 2nd year, give him the ability to become a restricted free agent at the end of his 2nd year, instead of the end of his 3rd year.

Chicago gets to underpay the league MVP for one more year, before the crazy offers come his way. The Cavs had an instant superstar player that played well above his worth for 4 years in a Cavs uniform, before he got a major contract. The Thunder get to underpay Kevin Durant for one more year, before his extension kicks in.

So if guys can see a contract be reduced because of underplaying his wort, guys should conversely be given the opportunity to opt out of his deal early, if he's playing way over his contract.

And I disagree with you about where fan loyalties lie. The players in the NBA are who people go to see . . not necessarily the teams. Half of my "Hawk fan" rants have centered around this very issue. The fact that up until this past season, we had been a damn good home team to see and that going to Hawk games was a good value to the fans. But what do some give as the reason why fans don't come out?

WE DON'T HAVE A SUPERSTAR.

That's why Lebron said what he said. 50% of Cavs fans un 2009 weren't Cavs fans . . they were Lebron fans. And wherever Lebron goes, his fans will root for that team.

Let Sund tell it . . we're an "elite" team because we've made the "final 8" for the past 3 years. So if we're that good, why is our fan support indicatve of a team who is an 8th seed or a team who isn't quite good enough to make the playoffs? It's because thw average NBA fan don't come to support their team. They come to root for their favorite player. And the team he plays on, becomes their team. Only the true die hard fans will unconditionally support their team, regardless of who is on the squad.

The NBA isn't team driven. It's SUPERSTAR driven. And now these owners are mad that these players are not only commanding stratospheric contracts, they're starting to form alliances to team up with each other.

Once again . . this is the monster that the owners created, and will continue to create. They'll negotiate a new deal, and some owner who really wants a player will find a loophole in the new CBA, and exploit the hell out of it ( such as how owners did with upfront balloon payments ).

[sturt]

North, this is barely even worth discussing... just because there is a sub-set of fans who are dedicated to LeBron doesn't lead to the larger conclusion that the vast majority of NBA fans are player-first fans. Perhaps that would be plausible if you didn't have teams associated with cities... maybe if the NBA were a traveling circus where teams were sponsored by different corporations but not aligned with any particular city. But no, you've taken a viable molehill (that indeed some fans do follow specific players) and spun it into a mountain (as if that population is more significant than the population that follow teams)... just not an accurate perception on your part.

[sturt]

Which is why I differentiated between salary team restrictions and individual contract team restrictions.

Would Bosh and Lebron have gone to Miami if instead of leaving a couple of million on the table, they were leaving 5 to 10 million a year? People talk about Jordan not leaving the bulls, but a good part of that is that the bulls were able to make him the best player in the nba by far. Would Amare and Anthony have gone to the knicks if their former teams were allowed to offer as much as they wanted, provided the total bill game under a teamwide cap?

Small market teams only beat big market teams for free agents when they can offer more money or other incentives.

Okay, maybe I'm dense. Please elaborate... I'm not getting your line of rationale here. Small market teams, by definition, do not have the same revenue/profit potential that a larger market team does, so offering more money in DEN or PHX than in NY is less plausible without a cap than with one.

One of the stronger selling points of the model I've put on the table is that... congruent with your suggestion about Bosh and LeBron... there's a significant drop-off between the compensation of a given team's top player and that of its 2nd and 3rd. And by building into the system a hierarchy on each team wherein recent performance is the overriding factor in determining a player's total compensation, it inherently has the effect of ensuring the best talent is spread league-wide... and the best up-and-coming talent gravitates toward those teams where they see opportunity to become a team's #1.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The fans themselves prove year after year that this is a superstar driven league.

Question . . who will the average NBA fan most likely pay to see

Atlanta

Memphis

LA Clippers

Philadelphia

If you said . . LA Clippers . . put a gold star on your forehead. Despite the above 3 teams making the playoffs, and 2 of those teams reaching the 2nd round, the average NBA fan is still more likely to pay to see the Clippers, than the Hawks, Griz, or Sixers.

Why?

BLAKE "the Bionic dunkerR GRIFFIN

The Clippers, unless Eric Bledsoe, Chris Kaman, and especially Eric Gordon play like stars, aren't overtaking the top 8 seeds in the West. But they have the dunking machine that people want to see.

So to follow up what I said in my previous post, if people want contracts based on performance, give Blake the option to opt out of his deal right now and make big money, instead of punishing him by staying a Clipper for 2 more years.

[sturt]

The average NBA fan will pay to see... whichever of those teams is his favorite team.

If one of those teams is not his favorite, he more likely won't even bother watching, let alone bother buying a ticket to see a game.

But if none are his favorite... it's on free TV... and if he's not otherwise got anything to do, certainly it's legit to suggest given those choices he might pick the Clippers... who knows. It's a legitimate question, but there's not a stone-cold definitive answer. He might be curious to watch this up-and-coming Memphis team. He also might have a higher opinion of the Hawks given their defeat of the Magic.

But regardless... almost none of us would turn the channel to watch the Clips if we know the Hawks are on... Clips fans, similarly, are going to watch their team, not some other one... that is, at least, as long as their team is to some degree still in contention. That's not even debatable.

Edited July 23, 2011 by sturt

[Guest]

You have to start with this question if you want to emerge with a rational agreement: Recognizing that the NBA is a business and the fan is its customer, what is the ultimate purpose of having guaranteed contracts in the first place?

"That it gives players security."

How is that important to the customer? Why do you or I care how secure any given player is? Just drawing out the logic here.

No, the ultimate purpose of having guaranteed contracts where the customer is concerned is simply and exclusively to promote fans' familiarity with the players on the roster... taken to an extreme to illustrate the point... iif you had no guaranteed contracts and a brand new slate of players every season, that would contribute significantly to fan apathy... fans wouldn't connect as they otherwise do, and fan support therefore would be eroded... leading to less revenues for NBA owners and players to divvy up.

The problem with the current system is that, by mandating all guaranteed contracts, it places the greater emphasis on this familiarity element than is necessary or productive.

To the contrary, a rational system would allow for guaranteed contracts as a smaller portion of compensation, but would place emphasis on ... and thus give greater compensatory reward for... recent performance.

We can negotiate actual numbers... I'm on record for a 75-25 weighting... but the concept is a rational one and where all these talks ought to be headed. Essentially, one could think of the concept is analogous (though not perfectly) to base-pay-plus-commission.

what the *bleep* does the customer have to do with negotiations between the employee and the employer? Your rational can be extended to just about any business in relation to health care or other compensation mechanisms. "Hey the customer only cares about getting their packages delivered on time, so why do they care about whether or not Fedex pays their employees health care? They don't, so let's get rid of it!"

If you don't recognize the reason behind guaranteed contracts has nothing to do with customers then this is a complete waste of space as far as I am concerned.

[sturt]

fanatic, slow down... one would have to be in elementary school to not understand this, and I know you're an intelligent person.

Ask a Knicks fan if he cared about guaranteed contracts for the last several years while Eddy Curry occupied a seat on the bench. That's an extreme reality, but there are numerous lesser realities that occur to every team every year. Ask a Knicks fan if he would have preferred that the agreement have been based on some evaluation of performance on a year-to-year basis, or as it was, based on a projection of how good he seemed like he might be at one highly-opportune point in his career.

To your analogy?

You and I do not cheer for FedEx over UPS. So, indeed, we only care to get the job done for the best price.

You and I do, on the other hand, cheer from the Hawks over the Celtics.

Therefore, we want our GM to have the greatest opportunity possible to assemble the best talent possible.

That means working out contracts with players.

To the degree that those players... and in particular, expensive players... are allowed to stay on a roster in spite of chronic bad play... it matters to me... and I'm sure if I combed through your posts, I'd find evidence that it matters to you, too.

Edited July 23, 2011 by sturt

[sturt]

And yet, fans like us do have reason to desire that contracts not be strictly based on recent performance... as stated, some degree of stability in the roster is important if fans are to retain an affinity for their favorite team.

[DJlaysitup]

News from Sporting News radio (just heard - may be old) is that there was an audit that showed that the owners' financial poor mouthing might not have been exactly accurate. They said the audit showed that either the owners made 5% more than the previous year - or 5% more in profits - can't remember which. Either way it sounds like the hundreds of millions in losses might have been due to some creative accounting.

As the old saying goes..."figures don't lie..but liars figure". :stirthepot:

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Sturt . . I contend that since the average NBA fan isn't a season ticket holder, that fan ( while maybe a fan of a particular team ), will choose to see his team play a particular opponent. Preferably one that is deemed to be very good, or has a must-see type superstar on it.

I think what you say, only holds true to season ticket holders. Because if a fan skips seeing the Hawks play the Raptors, and instead opts to see the Hawks play the Lakers, he is in essence choosing to see his/her team play the Lakers, than to play the Raptors.

And most notably, he's going to see the superstar, which is Kobe. The league and the networks market around superstars, not teams ( unless you're the Miami Heat with 2 superstars and a 3rd guy who is a legit all-star. )

National TV games

Clippers: 20

Hawks: 8

Despite us being a more successful team from top to bottom, the Clippers will get shown more on TV this season ( if we have a season ).

The league markets itself as a star driven league. The fans come out in droves whenever a star player rolls into their city. GMs and owners damn near fall all over themselves when a superstar becomes available. But the average fan cares more about the team than the star?

[Trueblood]

Well Trueblood . . we might as well have it the other way then. If a young player turns into a superstar within his 1st or 2nd year, give him the ability to become a restricted free agent at the end of his 2nd year, instead of the end of his 3rd year.

Chicago gets to underpay the league MVP for one more year, before the crazy offers come his way. The Cavs had an instant superstar player that played well above his worth for 4 years in a Cavs uniform, before he got a major contract. The Thunder get to underpay Kevin Durant for one more year, before his extension kicks in.

So if guys can see a contract be reduced because of underplaying his wort, guys should conversely be given the opportunity to opt out of his deal early, if he's playing way over his contract.

Which is the exact argument that I give to all the right wing hard liners who want to get rid of guaranteed deals altogether. Much of them are in New Orleans and I always give the example of Chris Paul and that he was practically a 2 time MVP while still under the rookie salary scale but they never have a good comeback for that.

Again, my deal is COMPROMISE oriented. I don't expect the owners to have to re-negotiate anybody's contract while under the rookie scale but I don't expect the owners to be able to get rid of players on a year to year basis either. My way works for the all sides including the players because getting rid of the Eddy Curry's of the world allows for an extra $11 million in cap space that the Knicks can spend on someone who otherwise would've been playing for the minimum or MLE.

And I disagree with you about where fan loyalties lie. The players in the NBA are who people go to see . . not necessarily the teams. Half of my "Hawk fan" rants have centered around this very issue. The fact that up until this past season, we had been a damn good home team to see and that going to Hawk games was a good value to the fans. But what do some give as the reason why fans don't come out?

WE DON'T HAVE A SUPERSTAR.

That's why Lebron said what he said. 50% of Cavs fans un 2009 weren't Cavs fans . . they were Lebron fans. And wherever Lebron goes, his fans will root for that team.

Ok, we can agree to disagree on that one but I'd prefer to see the Hawks win over 50 games without a superstar as opposed to be like the Clips with a superstar yet fall out of the playoffs time and time again. But that's just me. If most Hawks fans feel what you're saying then I guess I see differently than a lot of Hawks fans. This would actually make for an interesting poll. Would you prefer to see Lebron in a Hawks uni even if the team had no supporting cast and he kept getting tossed in the first round or would you prefer no star and go to the EC finals?

Let Sund tell it . . we're an "elite" team because we've made the "final 8" for the past 3 years. So if we're that good, why is our fan support indicatve of a team who is an 8th seed or a team who isn't quite good enough to make the playoffs? It's because thw average NBA fan don't come to support their team. They come to root for their favorite player. And the team he plays on, becomes their team. Only the true die hard fans will unconditionally support their team, regardless of who is on the squad.

The NBA isn't team driven. It's SUPERSTAR driven. And now these owners are mad that these players are not only commanding stratospheric contracts, they're starting to form alliances to team up with each other.

Once again . . this is the monster that the owners created, and will continue to create. They'll negotiate a new deal, and some owner who really wants a player will find a loophole in the new CBA, and exploit the hell out of it ( such as how owners did with upfront balloon payments ).

Well Sund is wrong and everyone on this board knows he is. That was a lame comment and he knows it and it was well documented.

However, I will agree to a certain extent on the monster that the owners created. What the NBA haters don't realize is that there is still a salary cap and if the owners don't create that cap space, the superstars can't move from team to team via free agency. When Chauncey Billups talks about how great it is that the players are taking control of their destiny, he is dead wrong and clearly doesn't realize that if the owners of the Heat don't get $50 million under, the players can't do jack diddly but stay with their own team.

But I disagree wholeheartedly about the future loopholes. The league has learned it's mistake and little by little, from '95 to the big lockout of '98 to the new cba of 2005, have slowly but surely eliminated loopholes. They're digging in this time and we'll see a new league with EVERYBODY having a shot at competing due to hard cap restrictions and more revenue sharing. ANY Hawks fan has to be happy about that since they've been in the lower half of the league in revenue generated for well over a decade and maybe 2 now.

[sturt]

...The league markets itself as a star driven league. The fans come out in droves whenever a star player rolls into their city. GMs and owners damn near fall all over themselves when a superstar becomes available. But the average fan cares more about the team than the star?

Um. Yes. He does. I'm not sure why that's even a question to you.

The average fan chooses to watch his team on TV before he chooses to watch another team's star.

It's only if his team is not on that he might choose to watch a game that includes another team's star.

When I agree with you that the league is, indeed, "star-driven," I don't assign that the same meaning as you do.

In my opinion, your misnomer is to think that the term "star-driven" necessarily implies that fans follow stars first, teams second.

That's not so.

"Star-driven," rather, only connotes that the NBA recognizes that it is better to focus attention on a few names on a few teams that clearly are championship material... rather than spreading attention more equivalently and gaining less name-recognition from the peripheral or prospective fan. The strategy does, as you suggest, raise interest in cities as these focal players play away games, but that's only relevant to how fans choose which games they will attend.

If I lived near Atlanta, it's entirely plausible that, if given the choice between games, I would first tend to choose a game involving one of these "stars." But it would be completely inaccurate to suggest that because I did that, my allegiance is to a star on another team over my own team.

I actually live in Texas. I get Rockets and Mavs games with some regularity. It is to the league's advantage to persuade me that Chris Paul is a big enough star that I should want to, at least, watch the regional network when the Hornets play one of those teams... or better, consider him a big enough star to buy a ticket to one of those games even though I don't actually align myself with the Hornets or the Rockets or the Mavs.

Doesn't work. Doesn't work with Paul, and moreover, doesn't work with the elites like Kobe or LeBron.

I watched one Rockets game this past season... vs. the Hawks.

Yes, that's anecdotal, but I maintain it's very, very typical.

Yes, a star heightens interest when the interest is already there. But a star is not "the" interest.

Teams are.

Edited July 24, 2011 by sturt

[Trueblood]

Good post Sturt.

As for the genesis of the NBA being a star driven league, I blame the corporate partners more than I blame the league itself. Super Agent David Falk was the first agent to really get players involved in endorsements and what not. That created the big financial gap as well as marketability between the stars and non stars.

Coming out of the lockout of '98, the league did what it could to market teams over superstars. It tried it's best to get it's sponsors on board and they made an attempt but when it came down to it, the sponsors said it wasn't working and that they would pull their money if they weren't allowed to market the way they saw fit and that was it for Stern trying to dictate things as far as marketing teams goes. Money talks.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Um. Yes. He does. I'm not sure why that's even a question to you.

The average fan chooses to watch his team on TV before he chooses to watch another team's star.

It's only if his team is not on that he might choose to watch a game that includes another team's star.

When I agree with you that the league is, indeed, "star-driven," I don't assign that the same meaning as you do.

In my opinion, your misnomer is to think that the term "star-driven" necessarily implies that fans follow stars first, teams second.

That's not so.

"Star-driven," rather, only connotes that the NBA recognizes that it is better to focus attention on a few names on a few teams that clearly are championship material... rather than spreading attention more equivalently and gaining less name-recognition from the peripheral or prospective fan. The strategy does, as you suggest, raise interest in cities as these focal players play away games, but that's only relevant to how fans choose which games they will attend.

If I lived near Atlanta, it's entirely plausible that, if given the choice between games, I would first tend to choose a game involving one of these "stars." But it would be completely inaccurate to suggest that because I did that, my allegiance is to a star on another team over my own team.

I actually live in Texas. I get Rockets and Mavs games with some regularity. It is to the league's advantage to persuade me that Chris Paul is a big enough star that I should want to, at least, watch the regional network when the Hornets play one of those teams... or better, consider him a big enough star to buy a ticket to one of those games even though I don't actually align myself with the Hornets or the Rockets or the Mavs.

Doesn't work. Doesn't work with Paul, and moreover, doesn't work with the elites like Kobe or LeBron.

I watched one Rockets game this past season... vs. the Hawks.

Yes, that's anecdotal, but I maintain it's very, very typical.

Yes, a star heightens interest when the interest is already there. But a star is not "the" interest.

Teams are.

Doesn't work? Maybe not for you, but for most NBA fans, it definitely works. And there is a difference between being a fan of your particular team, and being a fan of the league itself. Of course a fan of a particular team will watch his team before another team. But if he's not a season ticket holder, what will compel him to actually go to a game live to see his team? If what you say is true, the average NBA fan would have no problem watching his/her team play the Washington Wizards or the LA Lakers.

Unfortunately, for the average NBA fan, who their team play DOES MATTER. It's the reason why these NBA teams have started to do practice variable ticket pricing. The ASG knows that fans won't be compelled to see the Hawks play New Jersey on a Saturday night than they would the Mavericks on that same night. So they'll lower the price for the Nets game, and raise it for the Mavs game.

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/sort/awayAvg

When you click on that link, you see exactly what I'm talking about.

Top 10 in road attendance:

1) Heat . . . Lebron, Wade

2) Lakers . . . Kobe

3) Celtics . . . Pierce, Garnett, Allen, Rondo

4) Bulls . . . Rose

5) Knicks . . . Amare, Melo

6) Thunder . . . Durant

7) Clippers . . . Blake Griffin

8] Suns . . . Nash

9) Magic . . . Howard

10) Kings . . . the true surprise on this list

19) Hawks

Last year, the Cavs were the #2 road draw in the league, behind the Lakers. This year, they're dead last. The LeBron effect.

That link has the NBA attendance numbers since 2001. And you can see the "star effect" in each of those years

2001 . . . Lakers with Kobe and Shaq are the undisputed top draw in the league. Sixers with Iverson are 2nd. Kings with Webber, Bibby and the gang are 3rd

2002 . . . Washington Wizards are the #2 draw in the league. Why? The return of Jordan, of course.

2003 . . . Washington overtakes the Lakers as the top draw in the league.

2004 . . . LOL . . Jordan retires again, and the Wiz drop all the way down to 28th. Meanwhile, the birth of "King James" sees the Cavs move from 27th in 2003, to 2nd in 2004. Miami is 20th

2005 . . . LA and MIA make the Shaq trade, which instantly moves the Heat to #1. Lakers are still #2. Cavs #3. And the Rockets with the emergence of Yao Ming are #4

2006 . . . Top 5 is predictable . . Heat, Lakers, Cavs, Pistons, and Sixers ( who still have Iverson at the time )

2007 . . . Heat, Cavs, Lakers hold down the top 3 spots. The Iverson trade sends Denver from 10th to 6th. Celtics are 15th. T-Wolves with KG are 10th ( despite being terrible )

2008 . . . The KG and Ray Allen acquisitions vault the Celtics to the #1 draw on the road. Lakers are 2nd. Nuggets with Melo and AI are 3rd. T-Wolves plummet all the way down to 25th

2009 . . . Nuggets lose Iverson, and drop from #3 all the way down to #17. Lakers, Celtics, and Cavs are the top 3 road draws. ( Notice how the Lakers stay in the top 5, because they still have Kobe ).

2010 . . . Top 3 are still Lakers, Cavs, Celtics. Clippers are 29th

2011 . . . Lebron move puts the Heat at #1 and drops the Cavs to last. Rise of Blake Griffin vaults the Clippers to 7th. Durant's rising star elevates OKC to 6th. The anomaly are the Mavs, who despite winning 57 games, only ranked 26th in road attendance ( partly because people until now didn't respect Dirk as a superstar ). Look for the Mavs to be a top 7 draw next year though.

Edited July 24, 2011 by northcyde

[Trueblood]

I think the Kings are top 10 because of Casspi. Someone on a Sacramento board mentioned that a lot of teams have a jewish heritage night and they reserve it for Casspi coming to town.

But yeah, in general, road attendance is based on individual star power. Never doubted that.

But the majority of fans who buy season tickets and root for their home team are doing it for pride in their hometown and it's local team as opposed to just an individual star. When we see the Cavs attendance drop next year, it will have more to do with fans just not wanting to invest in a losing product as opposed to not being able to see Lebron. People forget, the team was winning over 50 games with it's most marketable stars being Price and Daugherty and they had no problem filling up the joint and if Irving and Thompson turn out to be the real deal, the fans will be back. At the end of the day, Lebron WON GAMES and gave the city hope that it could finally win a title.

The Clips are the exception as they draw fans to see a losing team but have a very marketable superstar. Keep in mind that being a cheap and accesible NBA option with no NFL compeition to the Lakers has always allowed them to have an upper hand over other franchises in small markets with NFL competition.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Trueblood