Bite me chicken little. The 'money talks' still stands….in addition to the "best live" facts of life. Don't you have a TV show to critique?
ESPN. Stay on point troll. You "deal in reality?" Here's reality: who in their right mind could be a 'fan' of someone who spends HOURS EVERY WORKING DAY posting on forums? Instead, try getting a job and supporting your family. Going through life as a deadbeat dad arguing with strangers as if your life depended on it is not the ticket to success. I've wasted enough time with you two deadbeats. I have work to get back to.
I thought you weren't a stat guy. So now irrelavant stats somehow back up an argument that wasn't even the purpose of this thread? An argument you started to derail the thread into to suit your argument? There are way more basketball fans than hockey fans. The biggest personality in all of sports is playing in one of the series. Higher TV ratings will prove nothing, unless you want to go back on your mantra about irrelavant stats and not understanding what they mean. If 10 times the amout of people watch the NBA Finals than the NHL Finals, that won't make the NBA more exciting to watch live. It just means it's more popular with a bigger fanbase. Worldwide, what sport will do higher TV viewership--the NBA Finals of the FIFA World Cup Final? Means nothing. _
awww, someone is upset. You sound like another poster I know that follows me around on here and another board. Hmmmm. the timing works out too. I love my fans, thank you. I am confused though, am I a deadbeat dad or do I need to support my family?
how are TV ratings irrelevant stats? player stats can be misleading, I use stats I just don't solely use them. I would rather discuss how the stats were accumulated than the actual totals. For example, a QB could throw 30 TDs in a season and the #s look great but if many were in garbage time what does that really tell us/ is there a garbage time in TV? The NHL is going to be on NBC(at least for the games they aren't being bumoed for the modern day gong show), they have the top 2 markets competing. Let's see the ratings. why would 10x more people watch a less exciting sport? I don't quite understand this? worldwide means nothing, the rest of the world likes soccer for some reason, we don't though WC ratings will be big here just like Olympic ratings are big. I would think the SC Finals being played in the top 2 markets for the first time would be a big deal. Let's see. Can't wait to go to the Garden to see it for myself. I know it will be huge here but will it play across the Country?
The WC will do better worldwide for the exact same reason the NBA will do better than the NHL. The NBA has a much much bigger fanbase. Period. Doesn't mean one sport is more or less exciting than another sport and you know that. Using TV rating is pure sophistry. You can continue to ask why more people would watch a less exciting sport--then I guess soccer is more exciting than the NBA. _
but why? the NHL has been around longer than the NBA, soccer has been nothing in this Country outside of pele, 1994 and WCs. so why isn't this much more exciting sport more popular? again, I LIKE hockey. I am not bashing it, I just happen to prefer basketball. I wonder why hockey isn't more popular, it is a good sport. I just think hockey fans tend to talk it up more due to an inferiority complex.
You guys are having a heated argument about something that's strictly opinion based. This could go on forever. This isn't whether so-and-so is a good QB, where opinions can creep in from time to time but points can still be made. This about whether something is more exciting. That varies by the person and what they find exciting, so whats the fuckin point of arguing about it? I might find competitive lawn mowing the most exciting sport but it would be pretty stupid of me to try and convince someone who finds it boring and tedious that it's actually cool.
I'm not heated at all, just stating my opinion on the subject. we are all entitled to choose what we like.
In a thread titled, Which is the best sport to watch IN PERSON?, TV ratings are completely irrelevant. The fact that you keep trying to draw the argument away from which sport is best to watch in person shows that you have no argument no matter how much you want to think you do.
Ha, competitive lawn mowing. In actual fact I know a guy who owns a farm who hosts competitive horse drawn plowing contests. Once a year. Just about the time when he needs his fields plowed. If that's not fucking brilliant, I don't know what is. And its still more exciting than a basketball game.
Lockouts limiting seasons, difficult of transferring the sport to TV/Internet, and landing on the wrong side of ESPN. Combination of those 3 limits the ease of watching on TV which limits the popularity. TV/Internet makes the game more accessible, creating more fans, creating popularity. End of the day, I still find hockey and basketball the most exciting live followed by a big gap with NFL and then MLB, but that's me.
ratings are irrelevant but a poll means all? ok, got it. I ask again, why do so many more people watch such a less exciting sport? The NBA has had 2 lockouts since 1999 and remember the NHL locked out their season b/c they couldn't afford to keep playing b/c they were losing money. the sport translates just fine to TV. I'm not buying any of those reasons. I would say poorly run would be #1 though, Bettman is a terrible commissioner.
Exactly. Let junc think he's made some point--it's irrelevant. And he knows that. He's being purposefully obtuse, and using irrelevant stats to back it up. Too funny. _
I don't care what you guys think, I wonder why you guys care so much about what I think. I gave my opinion, you guys don't agree. who cares? I just wonder why so few people watch this incredibly exciting sport.
I actually don't care what you think, I find it funny how you feel obligated to defend BB whilst taking potshots at hockey. And I'm not even a true hockey fan. But continue to be obtuse, it's entertaining. _
TV rating are completely irrelevant when discussing which is the best sport to watch in person because watching on TV has nothing to do with watching a game live. A poll on here shows that the vast majority on the site that voted think the NHL is by far the best sport to watch in person. It is 10,000 times more relevant to the discussion than TV ratings because, once again, watching on TV is not watching in person.
If you didn't care what anyone thought you wouldn't continue to argue after making your first statement and you wouldn't be so worried about always making a claim that you are right. Have you been able to find a poll, that is not from a basketball website, where people have voted basketball the most exciting sport to watch live?
neither shows us which is more exciting, it's an opinion so there's really no right answer. what I do know is that people that love hockey have an incredible inferiority complex. they always have to tell everyone how great hockey is. if it was as great as they tell us maybe more people would watch?
