- 436
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
seriously buncha cry babies in hereOriginally Posted by Kookcle
Lakers playing on national tv unappreciation post.
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by 3pledouble,
- Start date
- 6,617
- 13
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
1. Kobe
2. It is the second biggest basketball market.
2. It is the second biggest basketball market.
- 160
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2007
Real talk.
darthska
Staff member
- 46,582
- 30,941
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
You guys are off point with your Kobe answers.
Why did the Knicks get televised against the Celtics? Because of Kobe?
Nope. Because they're the Knicks.
And we're the Lakers.
We'll be on t.v.
Like it or love it; we're going to be on national t.v., no matter how bad or good we are.
Ghenges wrote:
Too bad being on national t.v. doesn't increase your chances of winning. Word to last night's beatdown.
Well of course it doesn't increase our chances of winning, but I see that you conveniently neglected to mention Thursday night'simpressive victory over the Nuggets, where our starters played like 30 seconds of the 4th quarter.
Selective memory much?
- 4,590
- 619
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
They need to give up some of their games to teams that are better and deserved to be seen instead of the lakers
CO !+%!+$# SIGN!!!!
I thought i was the only one that noticed this sorry@@@! team is ALWAYS on. These dudes talkin bout change the channel.Lucky for me i have league pass, BUT i like the TNT/ESPN broadcasts more thanthe local broadcasts because of the analysts and little tidbits they have. Which is why it gets annoying seeing a wack team on National TV every week.
real fans of basketball want to see players like Bryant, LeBron, and Wade.
Real fans??? Those are what you call casual basketball fans causethey'll ONLY watch a game if a "star" is playing. REAL basketball or NBA fans want to see what other TEAMS and PLAYERS have to offer.
- 17,303
- 8,994
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2003
Originally Posted by 27th4theHood
Dude, talking like the Lakers = The Knicks, Clippers, and Kings.Originally Posted by KB8sandiego
Originally Posted by Ghenges
Too bad being on national t.v. doesn't increase your chances of winning. Word to last night's beatdown.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
You guys are off point with your Kobe answers.
Why did the Knicks get televised against the Celtics? Because of Kobe?
Nope. Because they're the Knicks.
And we're the Lakers.
We'll be on t.v.
Like it or love it; we're going to be on national t.v., no matter how bad or good we are.
Unfortunate, but the Lakers still have a winning record.
was that clipper shot necessary?
or Kings for that matter?
darthska
Staff member
- 46,582
- 30,941
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Consult the team's record to see if the shots were necessary.
5-10?
6-8 is better, but (sub-.500) + (lack of history) = no airtime
5-10?
6-8 is better, but (sub-.500) + (lack of history) = no airtime
- 1,441
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
co-sign and yehh its because theyre the Lakers but if kobe wasnt there we wouLdnt be on TV as much but hes a Laker so get used to it bub
- 414
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2006
unappreciated.
- 10,219
- 1,671
- Joined
- May 9, 2005
Kobe is one of those that personifies the "showtime" flashy aspect that draws in ratings. People generally like to watch something like that over thePERCEIVED "boring" or "fundemental" teams.
Plus it's not like they're the Knicks. They're one of the teams with history and probably one of the larger base of fans outside of their own city,AND they're still decent. They're not in the better half of the playoff teams (thus the borderline lottery description I guess) but if they only showedthose teams with a chance at the ship, we would barely see any variety.
P.S. I remember reading last year that Lakers games drew in a significant amount of extra viewers than non-Lakers games on average. I can't be sure aboutany of this, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about, speak on up.
Plus it's not like they're the Knicks. They're one of the teams with history and probably one of the larger base of fans outside of their own city,AND they're still decent. They're not in the better half of the playoff teams (thus the borderline lottery description I guess) but if they only showedthose teams with a chance at the ship, we would barely see any variety.
P.S. I remember reading last year that Lakers games drew in a significant amount of extra viewers than non-Lakers games on average. I can't be sure aboutany of this, but if anyone knows what I'm talking about, speak on up.
- 458
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
like y'all be watching Bobcats or Hawks playing. It's really about Kobe, he makes game that much exciting, whether y'all like it or not. NationalTVs showing more Kobe since his 81 points game, though. I guess ESPN and TNT was mad that his 81 points game was covered by the regional FSN network. They wantto share the moment in case Kobe pulls something special. It's kinda like how now every Americans have to watch the Pats on the prime time becausethey are 'chasing history' and you and them gotta be part of it!!!! oh how exciting.
- 361
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
I would rather watch the Lakers than the Cavs and Heat
- 2,792
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
Appreciated because League Pass rarely offers games in HD.
- 15,762
- 517
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2005
It's funny how the lakers are being blamed for being on national t.v.
If you don't like what you see, turn off the tv or change the channel, join the many Americans who whine and complain about every single thing in thisworld.
Have a tissue.
If you don't like what you see, turn off the tv or change the channel, join the many Americans who whine and complain about every single thing in thisworld.
Have a tissue.
- 88,705
- 47,916
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
You guys are off point with your Kobe answers.
Why did the Knicks get televised against the Celtics? Because of Kobe?
Nope. Because they're the Knicks.
And we're the Lakers.
We'll be on t.v.
Like it or love it; we're going to be on national t.v., no matter how bad or good we are.
That is incorrect. if the lakers didnt have kobe, we wouldnt have that many national games.
darthska
Staff member
- 46,582
- 30,941
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
^ Would we have more with Kobe than without? Yes.
But that's not what I addressed, so what I said isn't incorrect.
The Knicks are terrible this season.
Terrible.
WHY were they on t.v. against the Celtics? O.K., we get that the Celtics are good, but why were they being televised against the Knicks?
Why... would the Knicks... EVER... be on t.v. this season?
The Hawks aren't. The Bobcats aren't. The Bucks aren't.
Why have the Knicks been on t.v. at all, and why will they continue to be on t.v. this season?
Because they're the Knicks. They have history and a huge fanbase.
Enh, I'm wasting my time.
You just keep cheering for your L.A. Kobes and I'll keep cheering for my L.A. Lakers.
But that's not what I addressed, so what I said isn't incorrect.
The Knicks are terrible this season.
Terrible.
WHY were they on t.v. against the Celtics? O.K., we get that the Celtics are good, but why were they being televised against the Knicks?
Why... would the Knicks... EVER... be on t.v. this season?
The Hawks aren't. The Bobcats aren't. The Bucks aren't.
Why have the Knicks been on t.v. at all, and why will they continue to be on t.v. this season?
Because they're the Knicks. They have history and a huge fanbase.
Enh, I'm wasting my time.
You just keep cheering for your L.A. Kobes and I'll keep cheering for my L.A. Lakers.
- 1,826
- 10
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
kobe is just a pure beast...and it is the lakers from LA..the best city in the world
- 9,892
- 188
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
Unappreciated.
- 2,936
- 13
- Joined
- May 14, 2005
^as far as the Knicks and all that, its easy to say that now, but they were actually thought to be a force in the east before the season started. That gamelooked great on paper when they scheduled it before the season...yall gotta remember they make the schedule before the season starts. Had Kobe got traded, theLakers wouldnt have half the televised games they do now, so its not just about the market they play in.
to answer the question, last year when the Lakers played on ABC, the ratings were up 200% (literally) from the average game they televised, a bigger spike thanany other single team. its about ratings my dude. Kobe makes more people tune into games than anybody else right now, thats why...
to answer the question, last year when the Lakers played on ABC, the ratings were up 200% (literally) from the average game they televised, a bigger spike thanany other single team. its about ratings my dude. Kobe makes more people tune into games than anybody else right now, thats why...
- 13,094
- 2,121
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2001
Sorry ska, I gotta disagree with you.
I think every team gets a shot on national tv per the CBA.
The Bobcats play Orlando on ESPN on the 14th.
The Bucks play on ESPN against guess who on Jan 11? Yup, the friggin Lakers.
Hell, even Minny plays on Feb 8 on ESPN against the Celtics as well as a couple of games on NBA TV.
The Hawks are the only one who won't appear on ESPN/TNT. But they'll be on SCORE against, yup you guessed it... the Lakers in Feb.
It's disgusting that the Lakers get 26 appearances on ESPN/TNT/ABC/NBA TV.
In comparison, GS gets 17 games. The Rockets get 17. The Cavs 24. Dallas 25. The Nuggets 20. And the grand winner, Phoenix with 28 games.
Come on now. You're gonna tell me it's because "it's the Lakers" is the reason we're getting roughly a quarter of their games on"free" tv? No, it's mainly because of Roster Guard 24.
I think every team gets a shot on national tv per the CBA.
The Bobcats play Orlando on ESPN on the 14th.
The Bucks play on ESPN against guess who on Jan 11? Yup, the friggin Lakers.
Hell, even Minny plays on Feb 8 on ESPN against the Celtics as well as a couple of games on NBA TV.
The Hawks are the only one who won't appear on ESPN/TNT. But they'll be on SCORE against, yup you guessed it... the Lakers in Feb.
It's disgusting that the Lakers get 26 appearances on ESPN/TNT/ABC/NBA TV.
In comparison, GS gets 17 games. The Rockets get 17. The Cavs 24. Dallas 25. The Nuggets 20. And the grand winner, Phoenix with 28 games.
Come on now. You're gonna tell me it's because "it's the Lakers" is the reason we're getting roughly a quarter of their games on"free" tv? No, it's mainly because of Roster Guard 24.
- 88,705
- 47,916
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
you got one thing right. you are wasting your time because your logic is flawed. See the Boston Celtics.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
^ Would we have more with Kobe than without? Yes.
But that's not what I addressed, so what I said isn't incorrect.
The Knicks are terrible this season.
Terrible.
WHY were they on t.v. against the Celtics? O.K., we get that the Celtics are good, but why were they being televised against the Knicks?
Why... would the Knicks... EVER... be on t.v. this season?
The Hawks aren't. The Bobcats aren't. The Bucks aren't.
Why have the Knicks been on t.v. at all, and why will they continue to be on t.v. this season?
Because they're the Knicks. They have history and a huge fanbase.
Enh, I'm wasting my time.
You just keep cheering for your L.A. Kobes and I'll keep cheering for my L.A. Lakers.
darthska
Staff member
- 46,582
- 30,941
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Please count the amount of Bucks and Bobcats games on national t.v. this year.
If you have any way of checking how many games were nationally televised back in '95, the year before Kobe was drafted to the Hornets then was mysteriouslytraded to the team he said he wanted to play for, I guarantee you, we played twice as many games on national t.v. that year than the Bobcats AND Bucks willplay this year.
And once Kobe's gone, we'll still be on national t.v. more than we probably should be.
If you have any way of checking how many games were nationally televised back in '95, the year before Kobe was drafted to the Hornets then was mysteriouslytraded to the team he said he wanted to play for, I guarantee you, we played twice as many games on national t.v. that year than the Bobcats AND Bucks willplay this year.
And once Kobe's gone, we'll still be on national t.v. more than we probably should be.
- 7,204
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
Originally Posted by NikeTalker23
Originally Posted by 27th4theHood
Dude, talking like the Lakers = The Knicks, Clippers, and Kings.Originally Posted by KB8sandiego
Originally Posted by Ghenges
Too bad being on national t.v. doesn't increase your chances of winning. Word to last night's beatdown.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
You guys are off point with your Kobe answers.
Why did the Knicks get televised against the Celtics? Because of Kobe?
Nope. Because they're the Knicks.
And we're the Lakers.
We'll be on t.v.
Like it or love it; we're going to be on national t.v., no matter how bad or good we are.
Unfortunate, but the Lakers still have a winning record.
was that clipper shot necessary?
or Kings for that matter?
You're right.
I forgot to add the Timberwolves and the Sixers.
I can't believe some of ya'll are actually getting salty because I said the Kings and the Clippers.
Go ahead, put the Kings and Clippers on 3 times a week nationally. Let's see if that helps TV ratings at all.
Like I said, the Lakers History + Kobe= why they get so much love on national television. They're the Lakers. Lakers = ratings, whether you're a fan or not. You either want to see them win,or want to see them lose.
Ted Turner and Disney don't give a damn how hardcore of a basketball fan you are. They see profit. They know that majority of people out there want towatch the Lakers, fan or not.
Yeah, some people get sick of it. Some people don't. Fortunately for me, I'm a fan and I don't mind.
kobefan88
Banned
- 173
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- 13,094
- 2,121
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2001
Back in 95? You mean, back when Showtime was actually still a household term? Back when Magic was still playing?
Back when NO games were on cable thusmeaning it was possible for EVERY team to get burn on tv? Back when they made the playoffs in 93, had Magic coach some games in 94, and Magic return to play in95?
Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that the Lakers had more games on tv back then than the Bucks and the Bobcats (an expansion franchise) combined.
Yeah, I wouldn't doubt that the Lakers had more games on tv back then than the Bucks and the Bobcats (an expansion franchise) combined.
