Wynalda tell hime Rome to suck his ****!

Nobody said it wouldn't be.

But basketball has a long, long, long way to go to surpassing soccer, rugby, Aussie Rules footy, cricket, Gaelic football, hurling, darts, table tennis and snooker in popularity in "some areas."

Hell, the NBA isn't even in the top five in popularity in "some areas" of this country.

 

....And the same goes for baseball.

 

Some areas is too manipulative. Could it be a town, a state, a block, a house, a bedroom... you get the point.
If you use "some areas" it means "I'm skewing data to support my argument."

 

Well, don't mistake Bend It Like Beckham's domestic box office take with that of Spider Man or Revenge of the Sith just yet. Let's not overestimate its cultural ubiquity. And I don't think interest in Beckham will translate into significantly more interest in MLS; I don't think a bunch of hornstruck women will attend Crew-Red Bulls just because Beckham is on the Galaxy. And let's not pretend that it's the same ole Beckham. Sure, he can dominate at times in MLS, providing he doesn't fall asleep with boredom. But he was buried on the Real Madrid bench for the most part.

 

True, true. But the ratings over there are extremely high. That has to say something, no?

 

I know there was some talk on this thread that the MLB attendance is up. But the NBA isn't doing to bad either.
http://www.insidehoops.com/attendance.shtml

 

Yes and no. Yes there is interest. However, there isn't the glut of games there are here -- with several national games as well as local.
Ratings might be high, but you have to check out all the data. They dont have the same depth of casual fan base, either.
Ratings are higher, generally, not necessaily because of the sport's popularity but the influx of local and regional talent. To equate it here, it would be like a TV station in Birmingham, Al, showing a Seattle Seahawks game, not because people there love the team, but to watch Shaun Alexander.
There is a huge difference between high ratings and high popularity. It's why TV geeks have ratings and share.


As for the highest average attendance, that can be skewed too. Is Highest total attendance is because you have more teams in the league than 20 years ago. And is it attendance as in people in the seats or actual fannies in the stands?

 

Here's another quote

 

again, is that 91.4 percent of tickets sold or actual people in the seats? Big difference.
They could have sold 91.4 percent of the tickets for a 20,000 seat arena, but if only 13000 show up, that's 5000 ticket holders who didnt care to go.

 

Will it says "NBA arenas were filled to 91.4% in capacity". Nothing about ticket sales.
But I see your point.

 

PR people can spin anything. Could just mean they sold 91.4 percent of the available tickets, not that each game had a head count of 91.4 percent of available seats occupied.

 

True......but it does say something right?
And if what you're saying is true, couldn't we say the same about the MLB's attendance numbers?