McDonalds launched their deal with the NBA in the late 80s or early 90s terms of the deal were not disclosed online, but it is thought to be worth millions.

The deal started in the late 80s or early 90s it ended in 2009 when it was replaced by Taco Bell. Though McDonalds still has deals with individual athletes such as Dwight Howard and LeBron James as well as some individual teams. Although no article online mentions why the McDonalds deal fell through I feel it was, because they felt that Taco Bell appealed to a wider international market as well as a teenager market. Taco Bell is on the up rise and the NBA thought they exhausted all opportunities with McDonalds. I thought the NBA should have stayed with McDonalds and they could have different athletes perform commercials with cartoons like they did early in the deal with them when they had Loony Tunes do the commercials.

Key players early in the deal included Larry Bird and Michael Jordan they were in one of the first NBA players in the commercials and they appealed to large audience as they were the face of the NBA as the deal moved on and China was becoming more involved in the NBA by having Yao Ming get drafted, McDonalds knew that picking up Yao would be a wise investment so they struck a deal making Yao the spokes man for China and for some commercials to appeal to the growing fan base in China. Later on they made a remake of earlier commercial that featured Larry Bird and Michael Jordan, but instead used LeBron James and Dwight Howard doing a HORSE competition, but only dunks were allowed.

The NBA is becoming more internationally known throughout China, Asia, and Europe and when the NBA has a lot of followers it appeals to advertisers. It is like the Celtics and Lakers selling tickets they have sales staff, but the staff don’t really have to sell anything, because the team’s images sell themselves. A company would be foolish not to advertise with the NBA.  It is also marketable; because of the athletes the NBA has an international base of athletes that appeal to the other countries.

The NBA and McDonalds are using commercials, online advertisement, and various events worldwide like clinics, concerts, and fundraisers. It is successful, because of past success and that McDonalds logo is very popular. Plus the money that the two companies already have made it easier for both to advertise anywhere they feel they lack support from. The companies use their own products to help advertise such as the NBA putting its product on the box of French fries or a sandwich. Same goes with McDonalds by them putting their logo on NBA commercials and in side court arenas.

During the 1990s portion of the deal there were many commercials that featured McDonalds and the NBA working together, but in the late 90s and early 2000s you saw less of that partnership on television and in the McDonalds restaurants across the country. Both parties started to get more commercials out, but by then it was already 2005 and the NBA was getting ready to drop McDonalds and hop on to the Taco Bell train.

One of the main reasons I came across during my research as to why the NBA left McDonalds is, because I think both companies knew they exhausted all the resources they could offer each other. The NBA though pretty much went to Taco Bell, because they are targeting a different brand right now. When they signed up with McDonalds they were looking to expand the NBA brand to China, Europe, and Asia and the NBA knew McDonalds had a high demand in those countries. Once the NBA got what they wanted out of the McDonalds they dropped them as there, number one fast food company sponsorship to go to Taco Bell. I asked why Taco Bell to, myself and it was a simple answer the NBA wants to gain more Latinos to the game and Taco Bell is in that market.

The NBA is never going to have a problem trying to find the right target market in all reality they have money to screw up once and go out again and reach the market they are looking for. The NBA can use any fast food restaurant they want to use and gain major benefits’ in reaching the market they want to reach. In the McDonalds deal McDonalds wanted to reach the youth and the NBA wanted to reach the international portion of the audience. Both parties achieved this and this I believe is the reason as to why they agreed to part ways. It wouldn’t surprise me if they re-joined later down the road, because of the lock out ending last year.

Whether it’s a season missed or a condensed version, the Celtics cannot afford to alter the existing schedule if they hope to get back into basketball relevance. I have this horrible feeling that the late 90′s/early 2000′s Celtics teams are about to reemerge onto the Boston sports scene. In fairness though, I did appreciate going to NBA games for just $10 a ticket.

Moving along, the average age of the Boston Celtics is slightly over 34 years. Of course, the Celtics will sign a host of support players, however, the core of their team is well over 30 years old. Kevin Garnett will be 35, Ray Allen will be 36 and captain Paul Pierce will be 34.

In fairness, when talking about age, the 1997-1998 Bulls won an NBA title with an average age in the 34 range. Whilst it’s fun to think “Anything is possible”, the Bulls were a far better team led by an unstoppable Michael Jordan.

The NFL was able to come to terms, at the eleventh hour, without causing too much of a disruption. With no real movement and a with a league in far worse financial shape, the NBA will be hard pressed to duplicate the NFL’s success in saving the season.

Recent rumors have the season starting in January, if at all. Things tend to intensify when players start losing game checks. The lockout shortened 1999 season helps shed some light on what a possible reduced season could look like for the Celtics. The 1999 season featured 11 sets of back-to-back games and two sets of back-to-back-to-back games for a Celtics team led by a then rookie Paul Pierce.

In 2011, the Celtics were 4-11 in the back end of a back-to-back stretch. As a Celtics fan, playing a shortened/condensed season is the absolute worst case scenario for this aging bunch of hall of famers. I’d rather see the entire season be lost, than see the Celtics limp their way through a schedule better suited for a team 10 years younger.

Depth will once again be an issue for the Celtics. Finding suitable role players, especially in the front court, has to be a priority for Danny Ainge. Any time lost due to injury will be multiplied times 10 when you consider the amount of games that could be played over any 2-week stretch.

On the flip side, the Celtics are historically fast starters and could steal a bunch of games early setting themselves up nicely for a stretch run. In the era of the new Big Three, the Celtics average record over their first 50 games is 38-12.

The Houdini says: Please get this deal done ASAP. I know David Stern reads this site often, let’s capitalize on the momentum of the 2010-2011 season and keep this great game going for years to come. And remember, the quicker we get back to playing games, the quicker we get to witness LeBron and D-Wade not winning another title. Bam