Thought I'd share an exchange I had on Twitter with a guy from Boston who goes by the handle EL_Apostrophe. His arguments seemed absurd, but maybe I'm wrong.
TheRx_com: ESPN will be televising a record number of college hoops games this season. This should concern the NBA war parties: http://bit.ly/uJOMnd
EL_Apostrophe: Not really. The NCAA product is much worse and will only make NBA fans that much more thankful when it returns.
TheRx_com: A very bold statement. How is the NCAA product "much worse"?
EL_Apostrophe: Are you kidding? Less than 1% of the guys playing are good enough for NBA. Thats the very definition of much worse. It's horrid basketball compared to NBA. I think I saw Valpo (vs. Arizona) go 15 minutes without making a shot.
Just because something is easier and more fun to bet on doesnt mean its a better product. ESPN packages it up nicely and forces college rivalries that we wouldn't otherwise care about down our throats.
TheRx_com: Just because something is a "better product" doesn't guarantees its popularity (e.g. ATP vs.WTA, Beta vs. VHS, PS3 vs. Xbox).
EL_Apostrophe: NBA is more popular than NCAABB and is a better product. I don't follow you.
TheRx_com: It hasn't always been that way. In the 70s, NBA's popularity plummeted, despite more talent than NCAA. Could it happen again?
EL_Apostrophe: There is no way that the average NCAA game was getting more eyeballs than NBA in 1970s.
TheRx_com: That's besides the point. The fact is, the NBA could lose some of its fan base to NCAAB as a result of a prolonged lockout.
EL_Apostrophe: And my point is that anyone who actually recognizes talent will only appreciate NBA more if subjected to watching NCAA.
Simple point: Every player in NBA would start on ANY NCAA team. The opposite is not true. Hence, better product.
TheRx_com: ESPN will be televising a record number of college hoops games this season. This should concern the NBA war parties: http://bit.ly/uJOMnd
EL_Apostrophe: Not really. The NCAA product is much worse and will only make NBA fans that much more thankful when it returns.
TheRx_com: A very bold statement. How is the NCAA product "much worse"?
EL_Apostrophe: Are you kidding? Less than 1% of the guys playing are good enough for NBA. Thats the very definition of much worse. It's horrid basketball compared to NBA. I think I saw Valpo (vs. Arizona) go 15 minutes without making a shot.
Just because something is easier and more fun to bet on doesnt mean its a better product. ESPN packages it up nicely and forces college rivalries that we wouldn't otherwise care about down our throats.
TheRx_com: Just because something is a "better product" doesn't guarantees its popularity (e.g. ATP vs.WTA, Beta vs. VHS, PS3 vs. Xbox).
EL_Apostrophe: NBA is more popular than NCAABB and is a better product. I don't follow you.
TheRx_com: It hasn't always been that way. In the 70s, NBA's popularity plummeted, despite more talent than NCAA. Could it happen again?
EL_Apostrophe: There is no way that the average NCAA game was getting more eyeballs than NBA in 1970s.
TheRx_com: That's besides the point. The fact is, the NBA could lose some of its fan base to NCAAB as a result of a prolonged lockout.
EL_Apostrophe: And my point is that anyone who actually recognizes talent will only appreciate NBA more if subjected to watching NCAA.
Simple point: Every player in NBA would start on ANY NCAA team. The opposite is not true. Hence, better product.