Highpointer
Newbie
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Posts
- 34
- Reaction score
- 0
It appears to me that the Spurs, after winning tonight's game, are going on to win their fourth NBA championship since 1999. The Suns, on the other hand, have never won an NBA championship after nearly 40 years in the NBA.
It appears that the Spurs are turning into the NBA's equivalent of the Yankees, although the Spurs are operating from significant geographic and demographic disadvantages in their home metropolitan area. The Spurs don't play in what is considered to be a major media market, as San Antonio is only the third-largest metropolitan area in its whole state, and is a city that is not deemed to be large enough to have an NFL team or a Major League Baseball team. (It is not even big enough to have a AAA minor league team - it's minor league team is AA).
Another disadvantage the Spurs have is that their home metropolitan area is relatively poor. According to Wikipedia.org, the per capita income of Bexar County (where San Antonio is located) is $18,363, about 17.5% less than Maricopa County at $22,251.
When the New Orleans Saints played some of their "home" games during the 2005 season after Hurricane Katrina, I read in other reports that it appeared that then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and other NFL executives were not keen on San Antonio being the new home of the Saints, because of the small size and low economic strength of the San Antonio area.
One can argue that the Spurs are the best professional franchise in all of the major sports. Therefore, from the point of view of Suns fans, what makes the Spurs the best franchise in the NBA, and one of the best in all of the professional sports?
And why have the Suns have gone nearly 40 years without winning an NBA championship? If the Suns go a few more years without a championship, we should start thinking of them as the Chicago Cubs of the NBA.
Ken Akerman
It appears that the Spurs are turning into the NBA's equivalent of the Yankees, although the Spurs are operating from significant geographic and demographic disadvantages in their home metropolitan area. The Spurs don't play in what is considered to be a major media market, as San Antonio is only the third-largest metropolitan area in its whole state, and is a city that is not deemed to be large enough to have an NFL team or a Major League Baseball team. (It is not even big enough to have a AAA minor league team - it's minor league team is AA).
Another disadvantage the Spurs have is that their home metropolitan area is relatively poor. According to Wikipedia.org, the per capita income of Bexar County (where San Antonio is located) is $18,363, about 17.5% less than Maricopa County at $22,251.
When the New Orleans Saints played some of their "home" games during the 2005 season after Hurricane Katrina, I read in other reports that it appeared that then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and other NFL executives were not keen on San Antonio being the new home of the Saints, because of the small size and low economic strength of the San Antonio area.
One can argue that the Spurs are the best professional franchise in all of the major sports. Therefore, from the point of view of Suns fans, what makes the Spurs the best franchise in the NBA, and one of the best in all of the professional sports?
And why have the Suns have gone nearly 40 years without winning an NBA championship? If the Suns go a few more years without a championship, we should start thinking of them as the Chicago Cubs of the NBA.
Ken Akerman