It is currently Thu Jan 23, 2025 10:30 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 844 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
This goes back to when a silly ass mult began Obsessing over me in the hope that i'd stop posting.


Oh God, if only.


Lying notes you haven't realized that the only reason that you stopped ignoring me is because others on here have taken to ignoring you?

Do you not realize that your long winded "Pseudo Intellectual" discourses are a turnoff for those that couldn't care less?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23315
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93183
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.

Now that I think about it I think you are using the wrong definition of relativity unless you think Issac Newton invented the concept of comparisons.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23315
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.


No, that's not why you alluded to it. You alluded to it because you thought he created it, stop lying. Now you expect people to believe that you were actually making a subtle reference to Isaac Newton being wrong about relativity? You're insane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.


No, that's not why you alluded to it. You alluded to it because you thought he created it, stop lying. Now you expect people to believe that you were actually making a subtle reference to Isaac Newton being wrong about relativity? You're insane.


Are you saying that it is ok for people to provide their own interpretation for the things that you say Lying Notes? (as you often do to others on here you damn hypocrite)

Or is it simply ok if one takes things in the context that they are provided?

inquiring minds would truly like to know? I want to know

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.

Now that I think about it I think you are using the wrong definition of relativity unless you think Issac Newton invented the concept of comparisons.


It is all relative Brickster. Can you please pass that on to your willing protégé Lying Notes AKA Brick lite?. He seems to not have a grasp of the concept.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 9:30 pm
Posts: 135
pizza_Place: Score cafe
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.

Now that I think about it I think you are using the wrong definition of relativity unless you think Issac Newton invented the concept of comparisons.


Drinky is the best case example for being wrong about relativity. Think about it. He thought him and Boers were close. Close like relatives. He was wrong about that. He thought him and Goff were close before Goff went big time. Close like relatives. He was wrong about that. He also thought Ben Wallace was a relative of Rasheed Wallace. Just cuz they have the same last names. He's wrong on relatives just like he's wrong on everything else. Cuz he's a dumbass.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93183
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
It is all relative Brickster.
Yeah, that's not the same thing as relativity.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.


No, that's not why you alluded to it. You alluded to it because you thought he created it, stop lying. Now you expect people to believe that you were actually making a subtle reference to Isaac Newton being wrong about relativity? You're insane.



The fact that Newton is somehow associated with it is somehow lost on this damn raging idiot. In his perpetual quest to be right about something he has to resort to interpretation to discover a hidden meaning. In an academic setting Lying Notes (which you are apparently immune), the only way I could be wrong was if he were not associated with it at all.

It is also interesting how you make all of these inferences regarding hidden meanings but you hate it when others return the favor. You are a hypocrite and a liar. The only way you could ever make such a claim is if I stated it. With your legal training they never taught you that? It is slanderous and libelous to make such claims without supporting evidence.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93183
Location: To the left of my post
Beerdown wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.

Now that I think about it I think you are using the wrong definition of relativity unless you think Issac Newton invented the concept of comparisons.


Drinky is the best case example for being wrong about relativity. Think about it. He thought him and Boers were close. Close like relatives. He was wrong about that. He thought him and Goff were close before Goff went big time. Close like relatives. He was wrong about that. He also thought Ben Wallace was a relative of Rasheed Wallace. Just cuz they have the same last names. He's wrong on relatives just like he's wrong on everything else. Cuz he's a dumbass.
:lol:

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Beerdown wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
long time guy wrote:
You falsely stated that he wasn't associated with the theory and it is obvious that he was.


He's associated with being wrong about it. Come to think of it, you're associated with a lot of things because you were hilariously wrong about them. Add this to the list I guess.


Yet he is still associated with it. Maybe Brick was wrong that is why I alluded to it? My original point which you missed because you are a raging idiot was that Brick was wrong about making it a "relativity" argument.

Comprehension is difficult for you Lying Notes.

Now that I think about it I think you are using the wrong definition of relativity unless you think Issac Newton invented the concept of comparisons.


Drinky is the best case example for being wrong about relativity. Think about it. He thought him and Boers were close. Close like relatives. He was wrong about that. He thought him and Goff were close before Goff went big time. Close like relatives. He was wrong about that. He also thought Ben Wallace was a relative of Rasheed Wallace. Just cuz they have the same last names. He's wrong on relatives just like he's wrong on everything else. Cuz he's a dumbass.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Can you also explain Yaz's theory on relativity Beerdown?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 33863
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
You guys taking some of Rosanne's ambien?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:56 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102662
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Spaulding wrote:
You guys taking some of Rosanne's ambien?
LTG is, likely among other things.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Spaulding wrote:
You guys taking some of Rosanne's ambien?
LTG is, likely among other things.


Again from the guy that has spent the better part of 2 years minimum attacking a guy that has no interest in responding. In his feeble brain he thinks that is somehow normal behavior.

That doesn't even reference his stalking of BigFan.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33208
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Trump's America. Gotta love it.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102662
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
long time guy wrote:
Again from the guy that has spent the better part of 2 years minimum attacking a guy that has no interest in responding. In his feeble brain he thinks that is somehow normal behavior.

That doesn't even reference his stalking of BigFan.
This coming from the guy who posts ratings about a sport he doesn't care about, then claims he didn't start the discussion.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Frank Coztansa wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Again from the guy that has spent the better part of 2 years minimum attacking a guy that has no interest in responding. In his feeble brain he thinks that is somehow normal behavior.

That doesn't even reference his stalking of BigFan.
This coming from the guy who posts ratings about a sport he doesn't care about, then claims he didn't start the discussion.



I don't care about basketball now?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33208
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
long time guy wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Again from the guy that has spent the better part of 2 years minimum attacking a guy that has no interest in responding. In his feeble brain he thinks that is somehow normal behavior.

That doesn't even reference his stalking of BigFan.
This coming from the guy who posts ratings about a sport he doesn't care about, then claims he didn't start the discussion.



I don't care about basketball now?


I figured he meant the NFL.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102662
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
I am not sure that I know that you don't care about sports?

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
denisdman wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Again from the guy that has spent the better part of 2 years minimum attacking a guy that has no interest in responding. In his feeble brain he thinks that is somehow normal behavior.

That doesn't even reference his stalking of BigFan.
This coming from the guy who posts ratings about a sport he doesn't care about, then claims he didn't start the discussion.



I don't care about basketball now?


I figured he meant the NFL.


I actually like football too. My point is that off season Football centric talk (which is a staple) of Dan Mcneil sucks monkey ass. There is nothing remotely appealing about "grueling two a days" "fourth string wide receivers" "or 3rd string qbs" that might make the 53 man roster.

That isn't compelling radio.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93183
Location: To the left of my post
long time guy wrote:
I actually like football too. My point is that off season Football centric talk (which is a staple) of Dan Mcneil sucks monkey ass. There is nothing remotely appealing about "grueling two a days" "fourth string wide receivers" "or 3rd string qbs" that might make the 53 man roster.

That isn't compelling radio.
It sounds like Dan McNeil could talk NBA all day and you still wouldn't listen though...

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23315
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
denisdman wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Again from the guy that has spent the better part of 2 years minimum attacking a guy that has no interest in responding. In his feeble brain he thinks that is somehow normal behavior.

That doesn't even reference his stalking of BigFan.
This coming from the guy who posts ratings about a sport he doesn't care about, then claims he didn't start the discussion.



I don't care about basketball now?


I figured he meant the NFL.


I actually like football too. My point is that off season Football centric talk (which is a staple) of Dan Mcneil sucks monkey ass. There is nothing remotely appealing about "grueling two a days" "fourth string wide receivers" "or 3rd string qbs" that might make the 53 man roster.

That isn't compelling radio.


Your personal opinions are not universal truths.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:26 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102662
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
You know what is compelling radio? Breaking down the 3rd quarter of a February Pelicans vs Grizzlies game.

Oh wait, it's not.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Frank Coztansa wrote:
You know what is compelling radio? Breaking down the 3rd quarter of a February Pelicans vs Grizzlies game.

Oh wait, it's not.


Actual game or the thought that maybe, possibly Odell Beckham might be traded? Maybe we can have another scintillating discussion about whether Jay Cutler is a great QB or not? man that is sure to light the lamp. How about whether he is still an NFL QB? Whoo that will move the proverbial needle.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23315
pizza_Place: Giordano's
long time guy wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
You know what is compelling radio? Breaking down the 3rd quarter of a February Pelicans vs Grizzlies game.

Oh wait, it's not.


Actual game or the thought that maybe, possibly Odell Beckham might be traded? Maybe we can have another scintillating discussion about whether Jay Cutler is a great QB or not? man that is sure to light the lamp. How about whether he is still an NFL QB? Whoo that will move the proverbial needle.


It will more than discussing last night's Spurs-Raptors game. There was a show that just got canned because their covering of those actual games drove listeners away.

We need look no further than the failure of Bernstein & Goff to see that your premise is faulty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72553
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Here comes the Brick! Here Comes the Brick! Here comes the requisite spin job that he brings to every discussion. Ain't gone fly guy. Love the way the NCAA championship game was referred to as the very generalized "college basketball". If I use the highest rated game of the NBA finals what do you think it would do to "College Basketball"?
In 2017, the CBB championship game averaged 23 million viewers on cable. Game 5 of the NBA finals averaged 24.5 on ABC. It averaged 20.5 million for the series. That's not a big difference when you talk about cable vs network coverage. When CBB was still on CBS it was beating most NBA Finals games. Anyways, the larger point is that college basketball isn't that important that NFL coverage should be shelved for it even if the NFL is in the off-season.

However, this year I'm sure the NBA Finals will beat the CBB title game but this was an all-time low for CBB given how lopsided the title game was and also it being on cable.

long time guy wrote:
2ndly i'm not interested in talking about that as that isn't my argument. You can talk to yourself if that is your angle.

It's because it makes your argument about the tv ratings look bad.

Im probably not gonna read all the rest of this but this is a flawed argument.

If the NBA playoffs were a one and done tournament the ratings would crush college basketball.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Here comes the Brick! Here Comes the Brick! Here comes the requisite spin job that he brings to every discussion. Ain't gone fly guy. Love the way the NCAA championship game was referred to as the very generalized "college basketball". If I use the highest rated game of the NBA finals what do you think it would do to "College Basketball"?
In 2017, the CBB championship game averaged 23 million viewers on cable. Game 5 of the NBA finals averaged 24.5 on ABC. It averaged 20.5 million for the series. That's not a big difference when you talk about cable vs network coverage. When CBB was still on CBS it was beating most NBA Finals games. Anyways, the larger point is that college basketball isn't that important that NFL coverage should be shelved for it even if the NFL is in the off-season.

However, this year I'm sure the NBA Finals will beat the CBB title game but this was an all-time low for CBB given how lopsided the title game was and also it being on cable.

long time guy wrote:
2ndly i'm not interested in talking about that as that isn't my argument. You can talk to yourself if that is your angle.

It's because it makes your argument about the tv ratings look bad.

Im probably not gonna read all the rest of this but this is a flawed argument.

If the NBA playoffs were a one and done tournament the ratings would crush college basketball.


How are you figuring that?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93183
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
Im probably not gonna read all the rest of this but this is a flawed argument.

If the NBA playoffs were a one and done tournament the ratings would crush college basketball.
Maybe it would do better but that is why we can compare it to a game 7 and get a pretty close approximation as pretty much anyone who would watch a 1 game series would also watch a winner take all Game 7.

The larger point though is that the Game 7 ratings for the conference finals aren't really that impressive and certainly don't show that NBA talk in March is going to do well for the ratings.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72553
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
leashyourkids wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Here comes the Brick! Here Comes the Brick! Here comes the requisite spin job that he brings to every discussion. Ain't gone fly guy. Love the way the NCAA championship game was referred to as the very generalized "college basketball". If I use the highest rated game of the NBA finals what do you think it would do to "College Basketball"?
In 2017, the CBB championship game averaged 23 million viewers on cable. Game 5 of the NBA finals averaged 24.5 on ABC. It averaged 20.5 million for the series. That's not a big difference when you talk about cable vs network coverage. When CBB was still on CBS it was beating most NBA Finals games. Anyways, the larger point is that college basketball isn't that important that NFL coverage should be shelved for it even if the NFL is in the off-season.

However, this year I'm sure the NBA Finals will beat the CBB title game but this was an all-time low for CBB given how lopsided the title game was and also it being on cable.

long time guy wrote:
2ndly i'm not interested in talking about that as that isn't my argument. You can talk to yourself if that is your angle.

It's because it makes your argument about the tv ratings look bad.

Im probably not gonna read all the rest of this but this is a flawed argument.

If the NBA playoffs were a one and done tournament the ratings would crush college basketball.


How are you figuring that?

Common sense. A 7 game series inherently dilutes the entertainment factor compared to a 7 game series. Even game 7’s don’t match up to it. It’s one of the reasons the March madness tournament is so popular.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 844 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 29  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group