Why Do the Warriors Get So Many National Televised Games?

xrzn

xrzn

Starter
I'm sure I'm not the only person who's noticed that the Warriors seem to get a lot of national televised games. These are the Warriors games since February and what they have remaining:

2/21 - Warriors vs. Hawks - ESPN
2/25 - Warriors vs. Nuggets - TNT
3/03 - Warriors vs. Magic - NBATV
3/11 - Warriors vs. Blazers - TNT
3/15 - Warriors vs. Fakers - ESPN
3/31 - Warriors vs. Utah - ESPN

Meanwhile, Kings only game national televised was against the Wizards on 12/16/2009. :eek:

Is Golden State's market that much better than Sactowns? Records of both teams are equally bad; Warriors are worse by a few games. I don't want to believe it's because of Curry, so I don't know. Maybe since the Warriors play an uptempo game with no defense, people enjoy watching them more?

It would just be nice to see the Kings get some national games, especially if Reke is to be ROTY. However, with Curry being showcased so much this late in the season, I'm getting worried that Curry - especially if he plays well - might actually be able to steal the ROTY award.
 
Part of it may also be the opponents. Those are many of the best teams in the league, who will be televised one way or the other. And yes, I think SF being a large market helps.
 
Well, of course you're sure you're not the only one who feels that way; we were just talking about it in the chat room the other night, after all... :p
 
It was based on what the TV people felt would be a better team. They expected the warriors to be better and the kings to be worse before the season started.
 
It's all on style of play. The Warriors run up and down with no regard for defense...and usually they entices their opponents as well. Which makes for a high scoring, face-paced-game. It's fun for viewers. But we all know that style of play cannot bring you a championship.
 
Coming off of a 17 win season, the Kings simply have no argument. They deserved the least amount of TV games. Next season they will get a few more.
 
I dont know about you guys but ive had 6 or more kings games here compared to the Ws. im sure ill be able to watch them again ocme the lakers or cavs or some big team
 
Uhhhh... no. In the United States, the Kings have only been on national TV once all season, and that was the game against he Wizards. So, if you (like me) live across the country from the Kings and (unlike me) don't have League Pass, you've seen exactly one Kings game all year.
 
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Uhhhh... no. In the United States, the Kings have only been on national TV once all season, and that was the game against he Wizards. So, if you (like me) live across the country from the Kings and (unlike me) don't have League Pass, you've seen exactly one Kings game all year.
Click to expand...
And that one measly game was a change to the originally published schedule, which had the Kings with zero nationally televised games.

I can only think the Warriors get more games, because the Bay Area market is huge, not because the Warriors are in any way more entertaining or better. Certainly not that many games better.
 
Warriors get air time because they suck and play no defense.

God forbid that a small market team like Sacramento plays and beats the NBA's appointed playoff teams.
 
kennadog said:
And that one measly game was a change to the originally published schedule, which had the Kings with zero nationally televised games.

I can only think the Warriors get more games, because the Bay Area market is huge, not because the Warriors are in any way more entertaining or better. Certainly not that many games better.
Click to expand...

Their record certainly isn't better than ours and their rookie certainly isn't.
 
NikateeN said:
Its a slightly larger market?

Im not sure why really, ive noticed it too and asked myself the same question.
Click to expand...

lol, slightly larger? The bay area is a top 10 tv market while Sacramento ranks in the bottom 10 (of NBA cities).

Not fair but... C'est la vie.
 
Some of the reasonings/perceptions above is why it seems it would be better for the Kings team to move out of Sacramento. It always seem like this team has been very poor and frankly left behind by other teams because it is in Sacramento which I can hardly believe.

Petrie cannot get a Superstar to play here in Sacramento. And what is the reason? It is because the Kings is in Sacramento. Well, then by all means let us get a genuinely hardworking GM who will work harder to make things happen for the Kings despite of it being in Sacramento!:rolleyes:
 
Prince_XY said:
Some of the reasonings/perceptions above is why it seems it would be better for the Kings team to move out of Sacramento. It always seem like this team has been very poor and frankly left behind by other teams because it is in Sacramento which I can hardly believe.

Petrie cannot get a Superstar to play here in Sacramento. And what is the reason? It is because the Kings is in Sacramento. Well, then by all means let us get a genuinely hardworking GM who will work harder to make things happen for the Kings despite of it being in Sacramento!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nobody but the Lakers consistently buys other team's superstars.

We just got one, and we did it the same way everybody else did it. Same way Cleveland got theirs, the Heat got theirs, San Antonio got theirs, and yes, even the Lakers got theirs. Small markets have little to do wiht getting superstars -- those are normally gotten through the draft. Heck we even managed to trade for one a decade ago, whihc is very hard to do.
 
asakkings said:
Wow curry is tearing it up right now. I love Reke and he is set for ROY, but its pretty fun to watch curry play.
Click to expand...


This would be an easier going away victory if Curry weren't talented, but he is, and he's playing in a perfect stats inflating system with no responsibilites whatsoever other than to run down and do whatever he wants to. Its not organized basketball, but it makes him a legitimate threat in a voting system that is going to always involve considerable hype and stats watching.
 
Arco Arena said:
lol, slightly larger? The bay area is a top 10 tv market while Sacramento ranks in the bottom 10 (of NBA cities).

Not fair but... C'est la vie.
Click to expand...

Sacramento isn't as small of a market as everyone claims it to be.

It's the #19 US TV Market (#17 in the NBA not including Toronto for obvious reasons) ahead of Orlando (20), Portland (23), Indianapolis (25), Charlotte (27), Milwaukee (33), Salt Lake City (36), San Antonio (37), New Orleans (43), Memphis (44) and Oklahoma City (45). Source:

(Your claim of bottom 10 of NBA cities WAS true before Seattle's move to OKC)

That isn't to say the Bay Area ranking 13 spots higher and Big City Bias played no role in the Warriors getting more National Games. Obviously, bigger market means more viewers even if the team is terrible.

But I believe the Kings' historically awful record last season, little preseason expectations for improvment (many national experts actually predicted the team would be worse), no real marketable superstar (pre-Evans explosion - not really easy to market KMart as a feature star player to non-fans) a sloppy, boring and at times embarrassing play style from last season now led by the team's 5th head coach in 4 years compared to the Warriors' high scoring and always interesting up-tempo Nellie ball, and the organization passing on the media darling Rubio in the draft all played a bigger role.
 
Bricklayer said:
Nobody but the Lakers consistently buys other team's superstars.

We just got one, and we did it the same way everybody else did it. Same way Cleveland got theirs, the Heat got theirs, San Antonio got theirs, and yes, even the Lakers got theirs. Small markets have little to do wiht getting superstars -- those are normally gotten through the draft. Heck we even managed to trade for one a decade ago, whihc is very hard to do.
Click to expand...
Ok. Not the type of Superstars of the likes of Lebron, Kobe, and Wade. Let us say stars, all-star, or players who are excellent and just a bit short from being called a superstar. So, why?
 
Löwenherz said:
Sacramento isn't as small of a market as everyone claims it to be.

It's the #19 US TV Market (#17 in the NBA not including Toronto for obvious reasons) ahead of Orlando (20), Portland (23), Indianapolis (25), Charlotte (27), Milwaukee (33), Salt Lake City (36), San Antonio (37), New Orleans (43), Memphis (44) and Oklahoma City (45). Source:

(Your claim of bottom 10 of NBA cities WAS true before Seattle's move to OKC)

That isn't to say the Bay Area ranking 13 spots higher and Big City Bias played no role in the Warriors getting more National Games. Obviously, bigger market means more viewers even if the team is terrible.

But I believe the Kings' historically awful record last season, little preseason expectations for improvment (many national experts actually predicted the team would be worse), no real marketable superstar (pre-Evans explosion - not really easy to market KMart as a feature star player to non-fans) a sloppy, boring and at times embarrassing play style from last season now led by the team's 5th head coach in 4 years compared to the Warriors' high scoring and always interesting up-tempo Nellie ball, and the organization passing on the media darling Rubio in the draft all played a bigger role.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what correlation the LOCAL TV market has to whether a team plays on NATIONAL TV or not. It affects where owners want their team to be, but as far as national TV spots, I don't think the big market thing is where it's at at all. Six or seven years ago, we were tied with the Lakers for the most national television appearances in the NBA. Know why? Because we had a good team. That's all that matters, whether you're good/fan-friendly or not. The Warriors aren't good, but people want to see a lot of scoring, and that's what the Warriors give you, ergo, they get national TV spots. The Kings should have five + appearances next season, especially if Reke gets ROY. But it's not gonna be because Sacramento is suddenly a better market. It's gonna be because we have a more interesting team, and a player that people want to see.
 
Hopefully we'll get alot more nationally televised games next year. I'm thinking 5-8 depending on how the draft and FA goes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King Baller
This is why we love the Kings
Replies
9
Views
1K
MizzouKing
MizzouKing
B
Crime at the line. "Surging" Fakers 9-1 in L10.
Replies
6
Views
708
mrlaze
M
K
Why aren't we near as good at Home anymore?
Replies
19
Views
909
LoungeLizard
LoungeLizard
Tetsujin
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Game] Sacramento Kings (3) vs Golden State Warriors (6) (WCDS Game 1, 0-0) 5:30pm Pacific 8:30pm Eastern
28 29 30
Replies
881
Views
41K
Donkey
Donkey
S
How fast do single-game tickets sell out?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Capt. Factorial
Capt. Factorial
Back
Top