If the Warriors were able to sign KD, doesn’t that defeat the argument that small markets can’t compete?

If the Warriors were able to sign KD, doesn’t that defeat the argument that small markets can’t compete?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Golden State isnt a small market. The team represents Oakland,San Francisco and San Jose.

Isn't the are full of rich asians?

OK compare that to NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Houston, Dallas etc

It’s closer to San Antonio than those markets

san antonio is a huge market

No it’s full of your people

I thought their main target was the asians from SV.

>It’s closer to San Antonio than those markets

Why is there only 1 franchise here then? It's one of the most populated city in the USA, OK, but certainly not one of the biggest urban area.

how do you expect mexicans to afford living there? there's a reason theyre all confined to the mission district

SF-Oakland is the 5th largest CMSA in North America

Proof? And what does that even mean

Oakland is the 44th largest city in the USA. SF is 13th

How that equals 5 is a mystery

Kys bait faggot

KD is a roleplayer. He plays average defense for his potential. He has top tier offensive ability, but doesn't do more than that. If he weren't a third option scorer on a team built on scoring. He'd be this generations TMac. But in essence he's a one dimensional player who doesn't get to trash talk without looking like a scrub cupcake.

SF Bay Area has tech money you fucking retard it's one of the richest and most expensive metro areas in the country. SF rent and CoL is higher than manhattan

Top media markets in North America
1 - New York
2 - Los Angeles
3 - Chicago
4 - Philadelphia
5 - Dallas-Fort Worth
6 - San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
7 - Washington, D.C. (Hagerstown)
8 - Houston
9 - Boston (Manchester)
10 - Atlanta

What does that have to do with being a large market or population?

How does having a lot of money make it a large market? Are you retarded?

>I don't know what a metro area is
San Antonio has no surrounding suburbs compared to cities it's size. City limits are artificial designations and don't mean anything. Why do the majority of people not understand this lol. If you just go by city limits San Antonio is bigger than Dallas but functionally its not even close to half it's size

city limit numbers are the only thing that matters

The Warriors have 4 all stars DESPITE being a small market team

The Warrior market is all of NorCal
Nobody gives two shits about the Kings, not even Sacramento

>Bay Area
>small market

11th largest metro area in the US (over 4 million), in the top 10 US cities in terms of GDP, right next to Silicon Valley, among the highest cost of living in the US.

...

Idiot detected

it use to be vise versa when the Kings where good

lol most people in most cities don't live in the actual cities because our cities are judge dredd-tier dystopian shitholes. According to your logic Tampa and Cleveland are 1/4th of the size and Pittsburgh is a fifth yet they all have three teams while San Antonio has one.

Ok, but the top 3 cities in population also have the top 3 in metro population (NYC, LA, Chicago).

It is what it is. SF is Seattle tier - middle market team

Op is either trolling or he's completely illiterate when it comes to demographics and base knowledge of geography.

SF is huge, with about 4.7 million people. To compare a city with a similar market, Atlanta is larger with 5.7 and with less sports teams. Miami with 5.5 million, Boston with 4.6 million, etc. These are the large market cities that hold more than two sports franchises across the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLS, and MLB.

But then you go to small market cities with only one or two pro sports teams, you start to see the drastic difference. Memphis (1.3 mil), Oklahoma City (1.4 mil), and San Antonio (2.5) have only a basketball team, which happens to have much smaller venues when compared to the NFL. The average of NBA seats to the venue is appoximately 19,675.6 while the smallest NFL stadium is at 26,000 and that's a temporary venue. And let's not even go into the conversation of televised outreach. The places with more televisions per household would reside in the places with higher density populations such as SF, Miami, Atlanta, etc. There are even markets so large that multiple sports venues are needed to accommodate the demand for entertainment, those are called megamarkets, cities like NYC (20.2 mil) and LA (13.3 mil) have so much of a population density that the market becomes oversaturated without any kind of consequence. And that's because there are a shitton of people looking for a quick buck to spend on some entertainment, and it all runs back to supply and demand.

Since we're on the topic of Durant to GSW, we're going to compare the two markets of OKC and SF.
OKC has a metro pop of 1.4 million spread out over an area of 620 square miles, that's a lot of elbow room. This means their cost of living is cheaper and their demand for entertainment would be relatively low. SF has a metro pop of 4.7 million crushed in an area of 47 square miles, so people are going to pay more to live there.

How is it the 5th largest "CMSA" if it only has 4.7 million people, you dumb fuck

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States

These are basically what most advertisers would consider a "metro area" to be, TV or radio.

New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
DC-Baltimore (disagree that they're one metro area, but the census knows more than me)
SF-Oakland-San Jose (don't really think San Jose should be there)
Boston
Dallas-Fort Worth
Philadelphia
Miami
Houston

Now with the fact that SF is going to have such a high cost of living, you can take those numbers and apply that to the ticket prices. OKC will have a lower price because they have a good draw but a much lower cost of living, which also factors into a lower cost of expenses in terms of the venue. And this is also where social demographics come in handy.

If you live in a densely populated area where there are substantial costs to living expenses, you are going to be among the more affluent or wealthier citizens. And with that comes more celebrity appearances due to the location from Hollywood (still quite a drive but a stone's throw in terms of a plane ticket).You're not only in a major market, but you're in a market known to draw some of the most iconic figures in the higher social sphere. OKC doesn't really draw anything other than it's local customers, hence why they don't provide priority seating for celebrities, as they have to order their seats just like everyone else.

Of course Westbrook is going to draw some attention because people like to watch him lose his mind on the court, for better or worse. He's an international icon with the draw of a Kobe Bryant-like mentality. So there will be others willing to fly out there to see a game when they have the free time to do so. But OKC isn't as easy to get to as SF, as a plane trip would be three hours, double of the time it takes to get to SF. That means your day is going to have at least a third of it dedicated to travel. and that's not even taking into account the possible relay flights.

There are a lot of things that determines the draw of the marketshare, and these things I've mentioned are the elements that consistently formulates the equation. You're essentially comparing the cost of a nice burger to a kobe beef steak and saying that they both should cost the same.

Reality is that GSW has 5 times the money draw of OKC. KD saw the market opportunity and left for it, while tarnishing his image.

(not true, by the way)

See the difference between SF and all the other markets is that they're super reliant on other cities in order to gain notoriety. NYC, LA, Chicago, Boston, Dallas, Philly, Miami, Houston, Atlanta are the only cities that matter in their area.

It doesn't feel like a place that has 8 million people (neither does DC, and no one IRL considers Baltimore part of DC)