Baskeball "World Cup" gets no respect

The lower viewing figures for the Brazil game were probably because it was played on a weekday morning. Unless you had been a lucky git and managed to arrange the day off or were allowed to watch it at work ( Or called in sick ) then you had to miss one of the biggest games ever.

Having said that I've just re-read your post and I see that the figures for the 2002 Argentina match are 21-24 million. Is this just for England alone? If it is then you could be right about the ratings being only 50% accurate.

While the EC is not as big as the world cup it is still a very big deal in Europe.

 

It's from the FIFA web-site. There was an article regarding World Cup TV audience. I had a big argument in this forum regarding the world audience vs the USA audience. Of course, all those arguments were gone after BigSoccer crashed.

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/en/020624/2/17xw.html

 

Not only in Europe, Basketball is followed by many in Asia, also. These fans are mainly younger ones, who grew up watching Michael Jordan and the next generation (who didn't watch Jordan but have heard about him numerous times from his/her older brother/sister).
In Korea, only because it was so popular among the teenagers and 20's, Men's and Women's Pro-Basketball leagues were created during mid-90s.
In Asian game (Asian version of Olympics), Soccer and Basketball are two most popular sports, with the gap between them being pretty close (at least until the last one). Since China ranks top 10 in the world, they usually dominate these games but a lot of countries are catching it up.
Anyway, I do think Basketball can be a sport of the world probably somewhat like tennis, but if NBA doesn't help it, it'll never happen.

 

OK, the highest rated game in England was not the 1998 clash with Argentina, but the 1990 semi-final game against West Germany, recorded 24M viewers.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/worldcup/story/0,11974,740866,00.html

The 2002 QF against Brazil attracted 17M TV viewers (ratings), but estimated 19M viewers including public viewing.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/worldcup/story/0,11974,744573,00.html

 

Re: Re: Re: ??

Basketball may be popular in China, but how many Chinese actually proclaim it to be their favorite sport?

Not that many, I am sure.

In India, from what I understand, it is by far and away the most popular sport -- BOTH amongst men AND women.

That fact alone will keep cricket ahead of basketball (from a global perspective) in terms of the number of people who actually regard it as their favorite sport.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: ??

Still trading off the colonies. I think you vastly overstate the popularity of cricket in India. It is a mile wide and an inch deep. It basically stems from cricket being the only sport at which India remains competitive internationally.

There is no domestic professional league. Very few intermediate (high) schools or universities field teams. The average Indian boy has never played the game. There are more true basketball fans and players in America than there are true cricket fans and players in India.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: ??

Fixed your post.

 

Re: Basketball "World Cup" gets no respect

Would that be the show on late night TV called "International Battle of the Stick Insects?" If so, it hasn't got much publicity over here, either.

 

Speaking of cricket, is it just me, or does Barry Bonds appear to be wearing cricket pants lately? I mean, geez, George Hendrick looks at Barry's pants and says, "Damn, those are some long-ass pants."

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ??

You are dead wrong on both counts.

Throughout the year, millions of Indian boys of all ages play cricket.

I have visited India a couple of times -- the passion and the depth of popularity that cricket has in India are incomparably higher than what basketball has here.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ??

I am American -- not English. So your attempts to fix my posts are nonsensical.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ??

Are you on crack? Have you ever been to India? This post is filled with more BS than ANY other in the history of BigSoccer, and that, my friend, is quite an accomplishment.

Cricket is incredibly[/i] popular in India. You can find kids of all ages playing in the streets, in apartment complexes, in hallways, at school, basically anywhere there is a spit of open land.

And the popularity there is massive. Players go by one name, much the same way Brasilian soccer players do. Hell, I was able to get out customs duties my giving autographs because I share the same name as the most popular player in the world.

When India beat Australia, there was as much public celebration in the streets as there was when India won the World Cup.

Your arguement is completely moronic and should be wiped off the face of BigSoccer. Then again, what should I expect from a professed soccer fan who skips the MLS All-Star Game when it's held in his backyard only to say that everyone is lying about the thunderstorm while you're sitting at home?

Sachin

 

I'm sorry.. I forgot to address an issue:

It's true there is no proper domestic league in the sense that you don't have Mumbai United facing off against the Chennai Cannons. But there a variety of domestic cup competitions and a national championship of sorts called the Ranji Cup (or something like that). Where do you think player such as Anil Kumble, Sachin Tendulkar (the best all-around player in the world), Harbajan Singh, etc. come from? That they spring from their mother's womb fully formed, bat and ball in hand?

Sachin

 

Great popularity in one populous country does not make it a globally popular sport.

Which, I thought, was the original point of this thread.

 

If we take it, that at a basic level, cricket reflects the area covered by the British Empire (Canada excluded) - then how much more global do you want?
To be considered globally popular, does it have to have several countries with a similar population size as India dotted around the world who play the sport?
There's a huge number of people who play the game, thanks to the sub-continent (lets not forget Pakistan!) and it's played across the globe.
Ergo - globally popular.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ??

Touche. I clearly misfired at my attempt at humor. I actually have visited India as well and while the international matches received a good amount of coverage, I just did not see much day to day grass roots interest and participation. Perhaps it varies by region, perhaps I was out of it, but that was my observation.

 

it is not played in south america. it is not played in north america. it is played only in britain in europe. it is played in britain, a few sub-saharan african countries, australia, parts of the carribean, and south asia. yes, it's the number one sport of the soon-to-be-largest population in the world.

it's not as peculiar as gridiron football, but it's nowhere near the global sport that soccer or even basketball is. it compares more to ice hockey, which is very popular in several large countries, but is virtually unknown in much of the world.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ??

Damn! Well at least I have accomplished something in my short time here. Guilty as charged on missing the All Star Game. But for the record, my observation was simply that it was odd that it was not raining in my neighborhood, not that it was not raining at RFK, which it clearly was.

 

This is the public perception, but it's quite wrong. The FIBA basketball establishment decided it wanted US pros in the tournaments. The US voted against it. FIBA knew we'd whallop the competition for a while, but they figured, hey how else will we improve? US voted against it because the NBA did not see the point of sending their stars to beat up on Angola.

That's true. These competitions will start to get interesting when the US, playing with a roster of NBA stars (and this roster is one of NBA stars: Elton Brand, Andre Miller, Jermaine O'Neal, this may not be a 'first team' but these guys can play) loses.

England said "we're too good for the WC" the first several go-rounds. And basketball does not have the same worldwide following that soccer does.

They probably right, because the fans are used to it being substantially true. Let's see what happens when the US loses a couple times. (My prediction is the US will lose soon, not because we're not bringing the best team we could, but because the other countries always prepare better for these tournaments than we do. Other teams now have just enough talent to exploit this advantage when all the other chips fall, even though they do not have nearly as much as we do).

 

Fair enough, I'll go with that.
Obviously nowhere near football but I would put it as more 'global' than ice hockey simply due to the varying locations of participating nations.
But again, as much as ice hockey's locations are dictated by temperatures (mostly), cricket's are dictated by history. That's why neither will ever rival football and (in your opinon) basketball.

 

FIBA knew what they were talking about. The international standard has really improved over the last 10 years.

Again, sort of like England back in the 1950's in soccer. They just sort of showed up expecting to win. They didn't really practice, or prepare for their opponents, or anything like that.

I would also add that in basketball, you only really need two or three really good players in order to compete. In that respect, it will be easier for small nations to compete than in other sports. Arguably, Yugoslavia and Spain are just about at that point where they could hope to beat the US if everything goes right for them.

 

True: all props to Schmidt.
Several journos covering Schmidt said he compared very favorably to U.S. gunners such as Larry Bird, Pete Maravich and Sudden Sam Smith (extra credit to those who remember him - hint- was a big college star whose game was only collegiate)
The U.S. will win the World Cup in soccer when it loses the basketball WC in an open (pro) competition. That time is coming - see France 2000, with the likes of Parker and Palmer (Yank, son of a BU Intl. Relations professor, married a Frenchwoman) almost beating the boys in bleu, blanc et rouge. That is a credit to both sports....

 

First off Ruby and Cricket are imensley popular in some areas. Second England doesn't give a rats arse every knows about it because of all the refrences to it on American TV and films we did used to be forced to play it for an indoor sport at school. But the British league isn't even televised. And American football (though I'm an exception) nobody cares about outside America I don't know about Canada. And we do play baseball but only 6 years olds and call it rounders. Soccer rules.

 

Take a look at Ted Allen, a big Center for London Towers, quality player and he's British too.