2019/2020 Schedule release Aug 12 Noon

Entity

Hall of Famer
#31
The key games are gonna be Den, LaL, Lac, Houston, GS, Portland, and Utah. We were 3-24 against those teams last year. If we could get 10 wins there I think we can make the playoffs. It’s not asking much. We were on the cusp last year only winning 3 games against those teams.
 
#33
Pelicans have 20 national TV games, the Mavs have 13. And we get one.

The disrespect...

KINGS bias aside, the people in charge of making these decisions are delusional and should lose their job.

I get that the KINGS won't be on Nat'l TV 20x. Nor should they be at this point. But only one time? All while the Pelicans with a completely unproven talent is on 20x ???

Makes zero sense.

The KINGS have been vetted to a point. They were a borderline playoff team last season while being among the most entertaining teams to watch. The latter doesn't come from me, but from a ton of non-KINGS fans that praised their style of play and entertainment value last season.

If that wasn't enough, the KINGS roster boasts several young up and coming talents, most notably De'Aaron Fox and Marvin Bagley.

I get that there is a ton of intrigue and hype surrounding Zion and the Pelicans. But 20x on Nat'l television for that team is an absolute joke. ONE time for this up an coming KINGS team is even a bigger joke.

I don't care if the KINGS are flexed later in the season or not. This up front television schedule is ridiculous.

Great thing for me and other local KINGS fans is that we don't have to depend upon Nat'l TV or League Pass to see this team play. Thank the basketball gods for that.
 
#35
I’d be curious to see how much these numbers vary year to year. Lakers and clippers benefit on travel distance by sharing a building, I would guess.
True, but that's only twice per year. Certainly doesn't explain the vast differences.

I mean, the KINGS and Warriors travel to play each other twice too and are only separated by 87 mi. Yet the KINGS are still at the top of that list.
 
#38
Lakers with the lowest travel miles for West Coast teams then Clips then Pels. Clearly shows league favoritism. Suns are #2 overall a full 10,000 more miles.
And Home for the Holidays for Lebron again this year. They’re away to Milwaukee on 19 Dec. Next away game is a quick up-and-back to Portland on 28 Dec. Then home again until Jan 10 in Dallas. Never in my life has the league catered to one player like this. Not Magic...not Bird...not even MJ.
 
#40
And Home for the Holidays for Lebron again this year. They’re away to Milwaukee on 19 Dec. Next away game is a quick up-and-back to Portland on 28 Dec. Then home again until Jan 10 in Dallas. Never in my life has the league catered to one player like this. Not Magic...not Bird...not even MJ.
I hate it. This is the NBA, and that is LBJ/LA.
Sometimes, that's just the way the brownie bakes.
 
#42
I hate it. This is the NBA, and that is LBJ/LA.
Sometimes, that's just the way the brownie bakes.
Yeah, but it goes to the unfair scheduling of the league and should be used to attack their stance on playoff structure. Half of our playoff drought is attributable to being in the West. The league states 1-16 playoffs would be unfair due to schedule imbalances. Items such as Lebron’s LA Holidays the last two years help put the lie to the league’s contention that schedules are in anyway balanced, and erodes the argument against 1-16 playoffs. I wish Vivek was more forward about this because he has nothing to lose. We can’t get any worse scheduling from the NBA.
 
#44

Who the hell did Vivek pee off at the league scheduling office? This is brutal.


But I believe in our young super team.
I wanted to do some analysis before posting in this thread. I think the league forgoed TV games to help us out. It takes some time but I wanted to see games against the big 7 of: Clippers, Lakers, Warriors, Houston, Denver, Utah, Portland....

The Spurs play 25 games. Because we play in the Pacific we play 26 games. It could be much worse.

Against those 7 teams, the Spurs play 4 rest disadvantaged games and 3 rest advantaged games. Of the 3 rest advantaged games 2 are against Golden State in late March early April when Klay will be back. Overall, the Spurs play 10 rest disadvantaged games and 8 rest advantaged games.

Against those 7 teams, the Kings have 3 rest disadvantaged games and 3 rest advantaged games. One of those rest disadvantaged is Golden State at the last game of the season at home where most likely few starters will play. Of their games the Kings play 9 rest disadvantaged games and 12 rest advantaged games.
 
#49
We were last place in road attendance last year.

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

Probably has something to do with it.
There is a correlation, however is it causation? Are the kings last in road attendance becaus they are not promoted? Or they are not promoted because they are last in road attendance? Or there is common factor causing both? My guess is there are a few factors contributing.
 
#50
I think it’s mostly ignorance and perception. The average fan mid-way through the year still probably felt the kings sucked based off over a decade prior of ineptitude and not following us too closely. Now I feel the majority have noticed the Kings are a young and exciting team to watch even if last years road attendance numbers don’t reflect that
 
#54
We were last place in road attendance last year.

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

Probably has something to do with it.
Self-fulfilling prophesy. No TV ... low recognition factor ... low ratings. Doesn't say anything about the Kings except they have league prejudice to overcome in addition to everything else.
@63royals Thanks -- I was going to post the same thing. I think you hit the nail on the head. The young fans around the league, especially, are heavily influenced by what they see and read in the media. If they're not in or around SAC, they're not seeing the KINGS play thus can't realistically become a fan. The double-edged sword is that ESPN, TNT and NBATV hardly cover them either. All these kids see and read about is LA this and GSW that.

I began following the NFL, MLB and NCAA football in the mid-to-late 70's. While it was a completely different world back then in terms of TV and media coverage, the teams I ended up becoming lifelong fans of were on TV the most.

Growing up in NorCal/SAC, I didn't see the Giants or A's on TV -- as neither were particularly good at the time. The only real media coverage for MLB at the time was 'Baseball Game of the Week' and the World Series. That's when I saw baseball being played. And the teams on TV all the time were the Yankees and Dodgers. I hated those pinstripers thus fell for the Dodgers. At 6, 7 years old, you don't understand geography. You root for team colors, uniforms and cool names. Most of all, you identify with one of the first teams you see play.

Same goes for me with football. The teams largely on TV back in the late 70's were Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Miami, and Minnesota. I fell in love with the Dolphins. No chance I could have told you where MIA was or how far it was away from my home. As a young kid, I did love their colors and mascot. But make no mistake, most of the reason they became my team was because they were on TV so I was able to discover them. By the time I discovered the 49ers, it was already too late. My first college game a few years later was Ohio State and that Team Up North. I chose the 'good guys' LOL.

I didn't really start seeing the NBA until the early 80's. By then it was largely Celtics and Lakers on the TV all the time. I hated Kevin McHale. Hated Boston. So I went with the Showtime Lakers. But I wasn't at all a huge fan. Hell, the Finals were still tape delayed back then so I didn't see too many games.

Once the KINGS moved here in '85, I started learning more about the game and developing a love for our HOME team. Thus I really started to HATE the Lakers. But had I been able to see the NBA more in the years prior to the KINGS moving to town, I might not have been able to switch allegiances.

So, again, from my POV, everything is about exposure. If a team isn't exposed to a Nat'l audience, they'll lack a strong following outside their home market. The teams that are on Nat'l TV a lot will pick up fans that might have chosen other teams had they known about them early on.

So with that all said, I firmly believe that road attendance reflects the fact that many fans just don't know much about our team.
 
#55
One other thing I just thought about. Look at the Warriors extreme popularity as a great example of what I laid out above. For the past 6-7 years, they've been on Nat'l TV a TON. Thus they've become one of the most popular teams around -- particularly with the youth.

But go back a few years before that and the Warriors had a very small following. Nobody outside the Bay Area talked about them. The difference between then and now is the sustained Nat'l exposure. Kids are seeing them on the TV every damn day.

I recall the KINGS developing a nice following circa 1998 through 2006. However, since they didn't sustain success and fell completely off the Nat'l TV stage, their popularity took an enormous hit.

Back in the 1990's, the Chicago Bulls were THE team. But since they've not been a stable team since, they have nowhere near the Nat'l following that they once had.

I think the resounding point is that the KINGS are finally deserving of some additional Nat'l coverage but they're being shortchanged for whatever reasons.
 
#56
@63royals Thanks -- I was going to post the same thing. I think you hit the nail on the head. The young fans around the league, especially, are heavily influenced by what they see and read in the media. If they're not in or around SAC, they're not seeing the KINGS play thus can't realistically become a fan. The double-edged sword is that ESPN, TNT and NBATV hardly cover them either. All these kids see and read about is LA this and GSW that.

I began following the NFL, MLB and NCAA football in the mid-to-late 70's. While it was a completely different world back then in terms of TV and media coverage, the teams I ended up becoming lifelong fans of were on TV the most.

Growing up in NorCal/SAC, I didn't see the Giants or A's on TV -- as neither were particularly good at the time. The only real media coverage for MLB at the time was 'Baseball Game of the Week' and the World Series. That's when I saw baseball being played. And the teams on TV all the time were the Yankees and Dodgers. I hated those pinstripers thus fell for the Dodgers. At 6, 7 years old, you don't understand geography. You root for team colors, uniforms and cool names. Most of all, you identify with one of the first teams you see play.

Same goes for me with football. The teams largely on TV back in the late 70's were Dallas, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Miami, and Minnesota. I fell in love with the Dolphins. No chance I could have told you where MIA was or how far it was away from my home. As a young kid, I did love their colors and mascot. But make no mistake, most of the reason they became my team was because they were on TV so I was able to discover them. By the time I discovered the 49ers, it was already too late. My first college game a few years later was Ohio State and that Team Up North. I chose the 'good guys' LOL.

I didn't really start seeing the NBA until the early 80's. By then it was largely Celtics and Lakers on the TV all the time. I hated Kevin McHale. Hated Boston. So I went with the Showtime Lakers. But I wasn't at all a huge fan. Hell, the Finals were still tape delayed back then so I didn't see too many games.

Once the KINGS moved here in '85, I started learning more about the game and developing a love for our HOME team. Thus I really started to HATE the Lakers. But had I been able to see the NBA more in the years prior to the KINGS moving to town, I might not have been able to switch allegiances.

So, again, from my POV, everything is about exposure. If a team isn't exposed to a Nat'l audience, they'll lack a strong following outside their home market. The teams that are on Nat'l TV a lot will pick up fans that might have chosen other teams had they known about them early on.

So with that all said, I firmly believe that road attendance reflects the fact that many fans just don't know much about our team.
This is a very cogent point, and speaks to why I strongly agree with Vivek’s goal of cultivating the Indian market. But, I saw “Dodgers fan” and stopped reading. You’ve corrected this mistake as an adult, right?
 
#57
This is a very cogent point, and speaks to why I strongly agree with Vivek’s goal of cultivating the Indian market. But, I saw “Dodgers fan” and stopped reading. You’ve corrected this mistake as an adult, right?
Lol. Don’t blame me, blame the times! And the fact that the Giants sucked so badly that they were never on baseball game of the week or in the WS. Besides, it could have been worse if I had chosen the pinstripers!