OKC DESTROYS Spurs' "small market" excuse

[da_suns_fan]

ABC record rating for game 1:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/nba-finals-game-1-tv-ratings-set-record-223528351--nba.html

Interesting excerpt:


Several of the NBA Finals matchups during that time haven't been great for ratings — Spurs/Nets in 2003 and Spurs/Pistons in 2005, to name two — but there were also two Lakers/Celtics matchups, the sort of marquee matchup typically identified as the ideal for the NBA and its TV partners. For a matchup between Miami (16th-biggest market as of 2010) and Oklahoma City (44th-biggest market) to do this well says a lot about the stature of the NBA in this moment.

They forgot to mention Spurs/Cleveland which was the record low (beating out Spurs/Nets and Spurs/Pistons) but no matter. In one game OKC proved that in this day of global media, local market sizes have nothing to do with national interest.

[SamoanTD]

Annnnnnnddddd your point is?

[eyeh8u]

taking quotes out of context is awesome.

[da_suns_fan]

taking quotes out of context is awesome.

Ummm...what?

[ace3g]

hmm Spurs notorious "boring" small market team ....

Thunder nationally not considered boring...

remind me of who is on Heat roster again...

[da_suns_fan]

Annnnnnnddddd your point is?

That Spurs have been in denial for a freaking decade.

[spursfan09]

Not the spurs fault networks decided not to market them and label them boring. Then when spurs were in finals surprise surprise nobody watched them.

[Salty]

The only Spurs fans who care about national TV ratings are the ones with an inferiority complex. Who gives a shit what everyone else thinks when your team has won 4 titles and is still winning?

[spursfan09]

So you are right it isn't a small market thing. It's about spinning your product in a good light and marketing it so people will buy into it.

[Salty]

Also, the answer is media promotion. The NBA and the national media choose who they want to promote and market as the faces of the league, and two of the biggest fish in the pond are KD and LeBron. It shouldn't be a surprise that exciting superstars draw the best ratings, although exciting has nothing to do with winning.

[da_suns_fan]

hmm Spurs notorious "boring" small market team ....

Thunder nationally not considered boring...

remind me of who is on Heat roster again...

Exactly.

Market sizes mean nothing. Exciting teams and players do.

[spursfan09]

It'll be exciting to see lebr

[DeadlyDynasty]

Good post, OP:tu

The Thunder have exciting, transcendent players, as do the Heat.

[da_suns_fan]

Also, the answer is media promotion. The NBA and the national media choose who they want to promote and market as the faces of the league, and two of the biggest fish in the pond are KD and LeBron. It shouldn't be a surprise that exciting superstars draw the best ratings, although exciting has nothing to do with winning.

:lol:lol:lol

Yeah, the Spurs broke the record year after year for lowest ratings because the league didnt promote it well enough.

[spursfan09]

LebrOn fail 3rd time in f

[da_suns_fan]

hmm Spurs notorious "boring" small market team ....

Thunder nationally not considered boring...

remind me of who is on Heat roster again...

Lebron James.

The same guy the Spurs faced in 2007 when they broke the record for lowest rated finals of all time.

[spursfan09]

Stupid iPhone

[Salty]

:lol:lol:lol

Yeah, the Spurs broke the record year after year for lowest ratings because the league didnt promote it well enough.

That, and the fact that they're boring to everyone else except for Spurs fans. Make no mistake, the rating for the Finals would've been much higher if the 7 seconds or less Suns could make it past the Spurs into the Finals...but they didn't :lol

I honestly couldn't give a shit about national TV ratings, just look at the rings :lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2:

[ace3g]

:lol:lol:lol

Yeah, the Spurs broke the record year after year for lowest ratings because the league didnt promote it well enough.

Exactly because ABC (host of the finals) affiliate ESPN doesn't mention the Spurs even though they have 4 Championships and a large group of International players. If only the league would realize such, they could have marketed the Spurs on a global scale.

[SamoanTD]

That Spurs have been in denial for a freaking decade.

What are the spurs in denial of?

[Budkin]

It's the media that created the narrative that the Spurs were boring based on the personality of Tim Duncan. Because he doesn't talk shit or scream after every dunk he's not marketable. Take a few weeks ago the article on the front page talking about the Spurs winning it this year with "...Yawn" after it. I'd rather have rings than ratings though.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

That Spurs have been in denial for a freaking decade.

...and beating your asses, gladly.

[da_suns_fan]

Exactly because ABC (host of the finals) affiliate ESPN doesn't mention the Spurs even though they have 4 Championships and a large group of International players. If only the league would realize such, they could have marketed the Spurs on a global scale.

Nonsense.

The Spurs have consistently gotten 20+ national tv spots every season on TNT and ESPN for the past decade.

You honestly think people dont watch because they dont KNOW about the Spurs?

The league didnt promote Lebrons first trip to the finals back in 07? I seem to remember differently.

[ace3g]

Lebron James.

The same guy the Spurs faced in 2007 when they broke the record for lowest rated finals of all time.

Didn't realize Spurs faced the "Not 1 Not 2 Not 3 Not 4 Not 5 Not 6 Not 7...Titles; post decision; post 3 time MVP" LeBron James back in '07

[da_suns_fan]

It's the media that created the narrative that the Spurs were boring based on the personality of Tim Duncan. Because he doesn't talk shit or scream after every dunk he's not marketable. Take a few weeks ago the article on the front page talking about the Spurs winning it this year with "...Yawn" after it. I'd rather have rings than ratings though.

Pretty sure Duncan created that narrative on his own.

Dont believe me?

I CHALLENGE you to find me your favorite Tim Duncan highlight. Find a REALLY good one and then pretend youre not a Spurs fan and watch it again.

[The_Worlds_finest]

my balls itch in this summer heat

[da_suns_fan]

Didn't realize Spurs faced the "Not 1 Not 2 Not 3 Not 4 Not 5 Not 6 Not 7...Titles; post decision; post 3 time MVP" LeBron James back in '07

Ah..so the ratings were bad because Lebron wasnt "the villian" yet?

Well that doesnt explain why the ratings for this year are higher than last year even though Miami (with EVIL Lebron) was in last year and OKC is a much smaller market than Dallas.

OKC is bringing in the extra interest, not the Heat.


Keep bringing the excuses and I'll keep shooting them down.

[Salty]

Nonsense.

The Spurs have consistently gotten 20+ national tv spots every season on TNT and ESPN for the past decade.

You honestly think people dont watch because they dont KNOW about the Spurs?

The league didnt promote Lebrons first trip to the finals back in 07? I seem to remember differently.

What is your point exactly? That the Spurs boring play and low TV ratings caused them to not own the mid-2000's and win 4 championships over the course of 8 years?

[EVAY]

The WCF between the Thunder and the Spurs this year had HUGE ratings. Best ever for both teams, and better than last year's.

It just might have something to do with what is on the alternative channels.

[FkLA]

LeBron and Durant are the face of the NBA. So obviously OKC as a whole has been promoted a hell of alot more than the Spurs ever were. Although tbf the Thunder do play a more exciting brand of basketball than those defensive-minded Spurs. Market can be insignificant when you have that combination but when youre 'dull and boring' it makes all the difference...or are you telling me a professional, clean cut, internationally-diverse winning organization in NY wouldnt have garnered more attention than the Spurs did in SA ?

[DMX7]

If they were playing the Celtics, you think the ratings would be the same? NOOOO!!!!!!!

[SamoanTD]

This thread=fail spurs don't care about ratings they have 4 rings :lol op thinks spurs care about ratings:lol

[Halberto]

Exactly.

Market sizes mean nothing. Successful teams and players do.

You know what really matters? Championships. Go ahead, convince us that ratings are more valuable than rings. Lol suns fan.

[Josh810]

What are the spurs in denial of?
Still waiting for the answer to this. Ohh, and also... WGAF?

[rascal]

Not the spurs fault networks decided not to market them and label them boring. Then when spurs were in finals surprise surprise nobody watched them.

The network did not market the spurs as boring, they were boring to most fans. Just the way it is.

[rascal]

i dont think the spurs organization ever cared about national ratings, its just the fans that care or not care. im a die hard spurs fan and i could care less if the other nba fans or the average sports fan watches the spurs. as long as spurs keep winning the spurs fans care about them. another point to make is that if spurs front office cared about ratings we would target glamor players are players that peak the interest of the casual sports fan but we dont target those kinds of players. we dont have flashy players, we have good fundamental, classy, no nonsense players that only care about winning. let the other ppl throughout the world say we are boring and not watch the spurs, who cares, i watch them and the only opinion that matters about my spurs is mine. if u dont want to watch the spurs go screw yourself and watch your exciting team with no rings suns fan. spurs fans only care about winning, screw david stern and his ratings, as long as we keep pushing the drive for five thats all i care about.

I see classy in your post. It is amazing how Spur fans think their players are so much more CLASSY then other teams.

[rascal]

OK City is the new kid on the block so there is a lot of interest for most casual fans seeing them win. Durant is playing out of his mind and is one or even the best player in the league.

They will draw more interest than the Spurs who trot out the same core team year after year. The spurs have also won with the same core so people have no interest to see them win again.

[rascal]

This thread=fail spurs don't care about ratings they have 4 rings :lol op thinks spurs care about ratings:lol

This is not about rings, it is about ratings. I like how you step aside of the argument and start talking about rings.

[Juggity]

The spurs haven't had a player who scored >23 ppg in the playoffs and regular season in more than 10 years.

Since scoring = excitement for casual fans, the highest scoring players are by default the superstars and lift their team to transcendent ratings. The Spurs built their franchise on preventing other teams from scoring — their own scoring was largely incidental in comparison to the other goal.

The Spurs were "boring" in the early-mid 2000s for precisely that reason. Everybody knows this. Small market syndrome is a minor factor compared to the "uninteresting" media and popular narrative.

[SamoanTD]

This is not about rings, it is about ratings. I like how you step aside of the argument and start talking about rings.

Think about who really cares about the ratings if you cement your place in history with 4 titles seriously. You think the spurs are saying damn are ratings are low no there thinking we want to win games.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

The spurs haven't had a player who scored >23 ppg in the playoffs and regular season in more than 10 years.

Since scoring = excitement for casual fans, the highest scoring players are by default the superstars and lift their team to transcendent ratings. The Spurs built their franchise on preventing other teams from scoring — their own scoring was largely incidental in comparison to the other goal.

The Spurs were "boring" in the early-mid 2000s for precisely that reason. Everybody knows this. Small market syndrome is a minor factor compared to the "uninteresting" media and popular narrative.

da_suns_bitch knows all of that. Spurs dick has been up Suns ass for the better part of that decade.

[rascal]

da_suns_bitch knows all of that. Spurs dick has been up Suns ass for the better part of that decade.

You Gay? What is with the gay reference.

[rascal]

Think about who really cares about the ratings if you cement your place in history with 4 titles seriously. You think the spurs are saying damn are ratings are low no there thinking we want to win games.

Again, the thread is not about winning rings. It is about the Spurs and poor ratings as compared to OK City another small market city.

[rascal]

Many on this board are sore about the Spurs poor ratings saying it is the reason why the NBA doesn't want the Spurs to advance, that there is some type of conspiracy to make calls against the Spurs.

[KaiRMD1]

That's the real championship, winning the ratings. Congratulations to the Oklahoma City Thunder, who needs a ring when you got ratings bro.

:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

:deadhorse

[SamoanTD]

Again, the thread is not about winning rings. It is about the Spurs and poor ratings as compared to OK City another small market city.

But the ratings examples are from the finals. I guess people can be sore about it but we all know how the NBA is.

[ChumpDumper]

lol sunfan

[spursfan09]

The network did not market the spurs as boring, they were boring to most fans. Just the way it is.

Yeah they did. Someone was always calling them boring which they were. My point was you would think if you want someone to watch your programming you wouldn't turn the casual fan away by saying hey look they're boring don't bother watching.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

You Gay? What is with the gay reference.

It's a euphemism, meant to convey sports dominance.

I'm not gay, but it's OK that you are.

[Halberto]

It's a euphemism, meant to convey sports dominance.

I'm not gay, but it's OK that you are.


pwned

[da_suns_fan]

What is your point exactly? That the Spurs boring play and low TV ratings caused them to not own the mid-2000's and win 4 championships over the course of 8 years?

That there is no correlation between ratings and market sizes, despite what Spurs fans have been claiming for the last decade.

Try to keep up.

[da_suns_fan]

If they were playing the Celtics, you think the ratings would be the same? NOOOO!!!!!!!

No, I dont.

Celtics wouldnt be as big of a draw as the Heat, in spite of the fact that Boston is a much larger market.

Again, market sizes dont matter. Hence the name of the thread.

[SamoanTD]

That there is no correlation between ratings and market sizes, despite what Spurs fans have been claiming for the last decade.

Try to keep up.

Why does this matter? Also are players don't want the spotlight if the spurs players would have opened up to the media and Timmys personality was that of a Kobe, Lebron, etc spurs ratings would be through the roof. But because the way Timmy is doesn't want the spotlight no behind the scene scandals barely opening up to media about his social life. America had nothing to relate to him or to sink there claws into the difference between the spurs and other teams is they don't have a show off the court its only on the court.

[da_suns_fan]

Why does this matter? Also are players don't want the spotlight if the spurs players would have opened up to the media and Timmys personality was that of a Kobe, Lebron, etc spurs ratings would be through the roof. But because the way Timmy is doesn't want the spotlight no behind the scene scandals barely opening up to media about his social life. America had nothing to relate to him or to sink there claws into the difference between the spurs and other teams is they don't have a show off the court its only on the court.

Your players dont want "the spotlight"?

Wasnt Tony Parker married to Eva Longoria? Doesnt Tony Parker have rap albums?

Excactly what is it about Durant's "personality" that makes him exciting? I thought it was his game that I loved to watch. Youre telling me that if Duncan had the same "personality" as Durant but the exact same game as he has now the Spurs ratings would be different?

You're seriously clueless. Thats okay, though. Youre a homer. Most avid fans are.

[ChumpDumper]

Your players dont want "the spotlight"?

Wasnt Tony Parker married to Eva Longoria? Doesnt Tony Parker have rap albums?He stayed in San Antonio though, so it's not the only priority for him.

And still lol @ this thread.

[Solid D]

I'll always remember and treasure the special, timeless moments when my NBA team raised those 4 "Top Ratings on ABC" banners from the rafters! It is an emotional time for any community of fans. And the dream of every young child growing up is to wear the "Top TV Ratings ring", the ultimate goal in competitive sports. Many are called but few are chosen.

[da_suns_fan]

He stayed in San Antonio though, so it's not the only priority for him.

And still lol @ this thread.

Maybe. I dont really care. Whether or not Spurs "choose" to be boring or "classy" is a different subject.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe. I dont really care. Whether or not Spurs "choose" to be boring or "classy" is a different subject.It's very clear you care very much about the Spurs and their fans.

[BatManu20]

ABC record rating for game 1:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/nba-finals-game-1-tv-ratings-set-record-223528351--nba.html

Interesting excerpt:



They forgot to mention Spurs/Cleveland which was the record low (beating out Spurs/Nets and Spurs/Pistons) but no matter. In one game OKC proved that in this day of global media, local market sizes have nothing to do with national interest.

:rollin Lol who cares dude. Quit trolling the Spurs Dynasty cause they always beat your team. No one cares about your opinion.

[Juggity]

This thread fails to deliver on its central premise. I don't think the majority of Spurs fans have ever considered the Spurs' "boring" reputation as an outgrowth of being a small market. Rather, based on every observation I've ever made, it would seem that Spurs fans are happy to accept that the playing style of those early to mid 2000s teams was far from what the casual NBA fan was seeking. They were willing to accept the media-bestowed reputation and its resultant ratings slump because it was a championship formula, not a popularity formula.

[SamoanTD]

Your players dont want "the spotlight"?

Wasnt Tony Parker married to Eva Longoria? Doesnt Tony Parker have rap albums?

Excactly what is it about Durant's "personality" that makes him exciting? I thought it was his game that I loved to watch. Youre telling me that if Duncan had the same "personality" as Durant but the exact same game as he has now the Spurs ratings would be different?

You're seriously clueless. Thats okay, though. Youre a homer. Most avid fans are.

So getting married is illegal and having a hobby is wrong? Also homer naw bro just being honest. Also did you not see Durant in the summer time? He was all over the place.

[Man In Black]

Its market size + marketability of team's stars. If Durant played exactly the way he plays now but his last name was Ddorgiovic no one would give that big a shit about it. If Westbrook was named Sun Yule...same deal. American players are easier to market.
Outside of Ricky Rubio, there aren't any international players heavily marketed.
If the Spurs did exactly the same thing they did but was based in New York...they'd be legendary.

But you should know that already right?

[da_suns_fan]

This thread fails to deliver on its central premise. I don't think the majority of Spurs fans have ever considered the Spurs' "boring" reputation as an outgrowth of being a small market. Rather, based on every observation I've ever made, it would seem that Spurs fans are happy to accept that the playing style of those early to mid 2000s teams was far from what the casual NBA fan was seeking. They were willing to accept the media-bestowed reputation and its resultant ratings slump because it was a championship formula, not a popularity formula.

:lol

1) So you claim that Spurs fans are under the opinion that their team failed to get finals ratings because of their small market size? I have 7 years of threads from this board to dispute that.

2) Love the "Spurs teams of the early to mid-2000s" were boring. This is the classic "the spurs USED to be boring but not NOW" argument.

Fun fact: Spurs' lowest rating was in 2007 and highest rating was in 1999. The Spurs are just as boring today as they were in 2007, 2004, 2002 etc etc

[da_suns_fan]

Its market size + marketability of team's stars. If Durant played exactly the way he plays now but his last name was Ddorgiovic no one would give that big a shit about it. If Westbrook was named Sun Yule...same deal.
If the Spurs did exactly the same thing they did but was based in New York...they'd be legendary.

But you should know that already right?

Dirk Fucking Nowitzki just destroys that argument.

And tell that to Jeremy Lin and Yao Ming.

[SamoanTD]

:lol

1) So you claim that Spurs fans are under the opinion that their team failed to get finals ratings because of their small market size? I have 7 years of threads from this board to dispute that.

2) Love the "Spurs teams of the early to mid-2000s" were boring. This is the classic "the spurs USED to be boring but not NOW" argument.

Fun fact: Spurs' lowest rating was in 2007 and highest rating was in 1999. The Spurs are just as boring today as they were in 2007, 2004, 2002 etc etc

When labels stick they stick like phx forever being a mediocre franchise it just sticks.

[Man In Black]

Dirk Fucking Nowitzki just destroys that argument.

And tell that to Jeremy Lin and Yao Ming.

Dallas, New York and Houston are what market size? Try again dumbass.

[da_suns_fan]

When labels stick they stick like phx forever being a mediocre franchise it just sticks.

Ive never heard "mediocre". I heard "Soft" for the last twenty years and that they have the worst owner in the league.

But this thread isnt about the Suns.

[da_suns_fan]

Dallas, New York and Houston are what market size? Try again dumbass.

Whoa! YOU said that it was all in the players name. That is, if Durant had some "Dragomicnoic" type name that no one would give a shit!

THen I point out players with odd names who have huge national interest and you go back to M-M-M-Market sizes!! :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

MARKET SIZES DONT MATTER!!!

Highest NBA finals ever: Chicago-Utah.

"Blocking" for Chicago, we see that the Salt Lake City/Chicago matchup drew more interest than Seattle/Chicago, Phoenix/Chicago, Portland/Chicago and even Los Angeles/Chicago.

Likewise, Orlando/Houston drew a larger rating than New York/Houston in back-to-back years. Do you have ANY IDEA how much bigger New York is than Orlando?

Market. Sizes. Dont. Matter.

Facts are facts.

[Man In Black]

Wrong again dickhead. Jeremy Lin did what for 3 weeks. He balled. If he had been doing exactly the same thing in Milwaukee it would have gone largely unnoticed. Reality.

[Man In Black]

Love how you conveniently point out NY HOU B2B 94 and 95 but leave out that Jordan had decided to leave the Bulls to try and play baseball.

Keep.on twisting.the.facts.

[da_suns_fan]

Wrong again dickhead. Jeremy Lin did what for 3 weeks. He balled. If he had been doing exactly the same thing in Milwaukee it would have gone largely unnoticed. Reality.

Nonsense. It might have not been AS big of a story but some Asian kid no ones heard of going off night after night would be national news, regardless of location.

And Kevin Durant is national icon playing in Oklahoma City. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[da_suns_fan]

Love how you conveniently point out NY HOU but leave out that Jordan had decided to leave the Bulls to try and play baseball.

Keep.on twisting.the.facts.

Holy Shit are you stupid.

I was comparing Houston/NY to Houston/Orlando.

The fact that the latter brought a better rating shows that market sizes dont matter when it comes to national interest. Orlando is a tenth the size of NY.

Michael Jordan's whereabouts have absolutely NOTHING to do with 1994 vs 1995 rating and whether market sizes affect ratings.

Please slap yourself in the face for being so fucking dumb.

[Man In Black]

Nonsense. It might have not been AS big of a story but some Asian kid no ones heard of going off night after night would be national news, regardless of location.

And Kevin Durant is national icon playing in Oklahoma City. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Bullshit on every level. French dude was the best pg in the l this year and didn't get the time of day. RECOGNIZE BIATCH!

[dbreiden83080]

Spurs Heat would have done a little lower than that but still good..


Fuckin trolls..

[da_suns_fan]

Man in Black is proving that the Texas education system is sorely lacking.

How the HELL does Michael Jordan's baseball career change the fact that Orlando brought a bigger rating against Houston than New York did?

[J21]

So the point of this thread is to point out that the spurs actually are boring and it has nothing with SA being a small market?

[da_suns_fan]

Spurs Heat would have done a little lower than that but still good..


Fuckin trolls..

Not really. Spurs/Nets brought a much lower rating than Lakers/Nets in back to back years.

Its pretty simple to see that when you block for the opponent, the Spurs consistently bring in a much lower rating.

[Man In Black]

Holy Shit are you stupid.

I was comparing Houston/NY to Houston/Orlando.

The fact that the latter brought a better rating shows that market sizes dont matter when it comes to national interest. Orlando is a tenth the size of NY.

Michael Jordan's whereabouts have absolutely NOTHING to do with 1994 vs 1995 rating and whether market sizes affect ratings.

Please slap yourself in the face for being so fucking dumb.

You cant be this dense. Oh you can be. You use Chicago as the highest rated finals and then use other Jordanled Chicago teams for your stats. Then you say a Jordanless league wouldn't affect ratings? Fuck....you're as dense as it gets.

[da_suns_fan]

So the point of this thread is to point out that the spurs actually are boring and it has nothing with SA being a small market?

Whether or not they are "boring" is subjective.

Whether or not small markets=small ratings is not.

[UZER]

Wrong again dickhead. Jeremy Lin did what for 3 weeks. He balled. If he had been doing exactly the same thing in Milwaukee it would have gone largely unnoticed. Reality.


:lol No kidding! There were daily polls being run "Is Lin a top five point guard?"

[Man In Black]

Olajuwon vs Oneal was a good draw. JORDAN was back but 45 wasn't as good as 23. But he brought casual fan back.

[Juggity]

:lol

1) So you claim that Spurs fans are under the opinion that their team failed to get finals ratings because of their small market size? I have 7 years of threads from this board to dispute that.



Not at all, son. I said the majority of Spurs fans were willing to accept that the early-to-mid 2000s spurs teams (includes 1999-2007) garnered an unfavorable media narrative, because the defensive strategy brought championships. Key word there is majority.

Also, it would be hard to deny that market size plays a role in TV ratings — for instance, a Lakers-Heat matchup would undoubtedly generate better ratings than even Thunder-Heat. But in the case of the Spurs, it seems pretty evident that media narrative is the determining factor here, not market size. Spurs fans have largely accepted the truth that one is a much greater factor than the other.



2) Love the "Spurs teams of the early to mid-2000s" were boring. This is the classic "the spurs USED to be boring but not NOW" argument.

Fun fact: Spurs' lowest rating was in 2007 and highest rating was in 1999. The Spurs are just as boring today as they were in 2007, 2004, 2002 etc etc



Seen the ratings for the 2012 WCF, son? You should look 'em up.

[FkLA]

Whether or not they are "boring" is subjective.

Whether or not small markets=small ratings is not.

Market size makes all the difference when you are methodical and boring, which the Spurs were. OKC isnt methodical and boring.

[da_suns_fan]

You cant be this dense. Oh you can be. You use Chicago as the highest rated finals and then use other Jordanled Chicago teams for your stats. Then you say a Jordanless league wouldn't affect ratings? Fuck....you're as dense as it gets.

Im going to explain it to you one more time, but thats it. If you dont get it then you dont get it:

The Bulls played in six NBA finals. The highest rated finals they had was against Utah even though their other four respective opponents were all in larger markets than the Jazz (the biggest being the Los Angeles Lakers). Thus, blocking for Chicago shows that smaller market teams can still pull in ratings.


LIKEWISE, Orlando vs Houston pulled in a bigger rating than New York vs Houston in back-to-back years. Again, this proves that market sizes have no effect on ratings as Orlando is much, much smaller than New York.


Do you get it now? Its not THAT hard. Jordan being retired has NOTHING to do with the fact that Orlando had a better rating against Houston than New York did.

Do you understand now?

[SamoanTD]

At the end of the day controversy sells and the hate and love for a team sells. Media has painted OKC to be the good guys they come up the right way blah blah and the media has painted Miami to be the bad guys they came up wrong self entitlement all that. The media has a big impact on how people feel about certain teams.

[dbreiden83080]

Not really. Spurs/Nets brought a much lower rating than Lakers/Nets in back to back years.

Its pretty simple to see that when you block for the opponent, the Spurs consistently bring in a much lower rating.

The Heat bring in ratings

And who cares? Spurs lost so whatever....

[SamoanTD]

Why is this such a important matter to you?

[da_suns_fan]

Man in black, lemme try this:

I am showing you TWO different examples of where a smaller market team got a higher rating than a larger market team against the same opponent.

example 1: Utah got a better rating against Chicago than the Los Angeles got against Chicago.

Example 2: Orlando got a better rating against Houston than New York got against Houston.

Does that clear it up?

[da_suns_fan]

Why is this such a important matter to you?

:lol

Umm..because I like basketball? Why is anyone on this board?!! Why is it so important to them?

[SnakeBoy]

I CHALLENGE you to find me your favorite Tim Duncan highlight. Find a REALLY good one and then pretend youre not a Spurs fan and watch it again.

There was that time Duncan went hard at the rim and Shaq was there to try and get a highlight block but instead Duncan avoided the block and gently laid it in over Shaq. Then Duncan turned and headed down the court expressionless. That was cool.

Also the time Garnett was guarding Tim on the wing and Tim made a bank shot and got the foul. Then Tim made the fta and turned and headed down the court expressionless. That was pretty cool too.

[SamoanTD]

:lol

Umm..because I like basketball? Why is anyone on this board?!! Why is it so important to them?

It's not important to anybody but you everyone just likes giving you shit because you shit your pants and its funny when you throw your temper tantrums tbh. Ratings don't really matter though to me as a basketball fan why should I care if anybody else watch's my favorite team if I enjoy them than I enjoy them I give 2 fucks if my neighbor does.

[Man In Black]

Im going to explain it to you one more time, but thats it. If you dont get it then you dont get it:

I get it..you simply do not...OBSERVE.


The Bulls played in six NBA finals. The highest rated finals they had was against Utah
You conveniently leave out the fact that Jordan was slated to retire and that Reinsdorf and Krauss had publicly let it be known that this would be the last year the Bulls were going to be THOSE BULLS.
BLOCK REMOVED.


even though their other four respective opponents were all in larger markets than the Jazz (the biggest being the Los Angeles Lakers). Thus, blocking for Chicago shows that smaller market teams can still pull in ratings.
The Laker finals was the Lakers on a decline and Chicago vying for it's first title in the Jordan era but yeah...whatever.



LIKEWISE, Orlando vs Houston pulled in a bigger rating than New York vs Houston in back-to-back years

Like I said. People came back because Jordan came back and even though #45 Jordan wasn't strong enough to play like #23 Jordan, he still brought back the masses...enough to the point that having an Olajuwon vs O'Neal matchup was a decent enough draw. No Jordan at all plus New York playing Houston meant that no one gave a fuck about that series except for New York and Houston. But you knew that right? So again....A Jordan led playoffs even with him not being in the Finals was a better lead-in than no Jordan at all the 2 season prior...Get that?


. Again, this proves that market sizes have no effect on ratings as Orlando is much, much smaller than New York.


Blocked and Owned by the Man In Black. You're really making this easy.


Do you get it now? Its not THAT hard. Jordan being retired has NOTHING to do with the fact that Orlando had a better rating against Houston than New York did.

March that year 1994-1995 Jordan unretired and came back. You left that part out...why because it doesn't help your stance?

Do you understand now?

I understand it perfectly...it's apparent that you do not.

[Josh810]

New question: What do you want all of us to do with this information? Should we all agree with you? Small market doesn't mean bad ratings? Ok, cool story bro. It doesn't. Now, you wanna find something more productive to do with your time? You've been here for hours hammering the same point home. WE GET IT. WHO CARES.

[SamoanTD]

There was that time Duncan went hard at the rim and Shaq was there to try and get a highlight block but instead Duncan avoided the block and gently laid it in over Shaq. Then Duncan turned and headed down the court expressionless. That was cool.

Also the time Garnett was guarding Tim on the wing and Tim made a bank shot and got the foul. Then Tim made the fta and turned and headed down the court expressionless. That was pretty cool too.

Timmy faking out I think it was mutombo was just hilarious and awesome also this past playoffs against utah and clips duncan was destroying cats just out classing them tbh.

[da_suns_fan]

Like I said. People came back because Jordan came back and even though #45 Jordan wasn't strong enough to play like #23 Jordan, he still brought back the masses...enough to the point that having an Olajuwon vs O'Neal matchup was a decent enough draw. No Jordan at all plus New York playing Houston meant that no one gave a fuck about that series except for New York and Houston. But you knew that right? So again....A Jordan led playoffs even with him not being in the Finals was a better lead-in than no Jordan at all the 2 season prior...Get that?


:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:l ol:lol:lol


You cant make this stuff up.

Only a Spurs fan would claim that THE REASON that Orlando pulled a better rating than New York was because Jordan was back in the league in 95.

Nevermind that Jordan wasnt in the freaking Finals!!!! His simply "being in basketball" constituted a ratings increase for Orlando/Houston?!!!!!

Is that your theory? Holy shit that stupid!

So it had nothing to do with the fact that Shaq (in his media prime) and Penny Hardaway (who had national Nike commercials with Chris Rock as 'lil Penny') were infinitely more interesting and watchable than Patrick Ewing's Knicks?!!!!

I whole-heartedly disagree.

Likewise, you claim the only reason peeps watched in 98 was because everyone "knew" it was the last Jordan/Bulls year. Okay, well second best finals was Phoenix/Bulls. Phoenix is STILL a much smaller market than LA. You lose again.

[Man In Black]

You sound like Floyd Mayweather. Mayweather takes the stance that he has a huge draw and points to the fact that De La Hoya Mayweather is the largest PPV pays in boxing history. Yet, like you....little boy floyd never points out that the fight was DE LA HOYA mayweather and that floyd was the b attraction.
Dumbass Suns fan....Utah was the b attraction. RECOGNIZE.

[Man In Black]

Holy shit you are as dense as they come dumbass suns fan. Hey I get that it doesn't rain for over 100 days in the valley of the Sun...but you can't be suffering from heatstroke can you? Only then would you being this dense make sense.

As if Barkley vs Jordan isn't an intriguing enough matchup. HA! I'm laughin' my ass over here...AT YOU.

[da_suns_fan]

Man in Black, something else. Youre claiming that Jordan affected ratings and it had nothing to do with market sizes.

If that were true, that would prove that market sizes still dont matter. National interest isnt tied to market sizes, only whether or not Jordan was in the league (according to you...which is still a STUPID theory).

[da_suns_fan]

Holy shit you are as dense as they come dumbass suns fan. Hey I get that it doesn't rain for over 100 days in the valley of the Sun...but you can't be suffering from heatstroke can you? Only then would you being this dense make sense.

As if Barkley vs Jordan isn't an intriguing enough matchup. HA! I'm laughin' my ass over here...AT YOU.

It was an intriguing matchup. Which is why it had a high rating.

A higher rating than Bulls/Lakers even though LA is a larger market than Phoenix.

Do. You. Get. It. Now?

[Man In Black]

Jordan as a lead-in means nothing to ratings?

Fuck....him and the Dream Team are on 2 channels right freakin' now and he's the principal topic.

If that doesn't cement why your ratings argument is baseless that you simply cannot be reached. Diamond Hard dense. RECOGNIZE.

[Salty]

That there is no correlation between ratings and market sizes, despite what Spurs fans have been claiming for the last decade.

Try to keep up.

And?...

Once again, the only fans who make excuses for poor national TV ratings are those with an inferiority complex. In fact, you're showing yours right now because you have no other way to diminish the Spurs' success besides ratings, which no reasonable Spurs fan truly gives a shit about. But hey...

http://www.thefailpage.com/upload/03-2012/1334308732_coolstorybro.jpg

[Sean Cagney]

Exactly.

Market sizes mean nothing. Exciting teams and players do.

TOO bad your so called exciting team never won shyt man, which is why you are hating on the team that prevented it the most in the Spurs. :rollin

[Man In Black]

Market sizes mean SOMETHING. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be....or in your case, how you leave out crucial info which proves it's more shades of grey.

[da_suns_fan]

Jordan as a lead-in means nothing to ratings?

Fuck....him and the Dream Team are on 2 channels right freakin' now and he's the principal topic.

If that doesn't cement why your ratings argument is baseless that you simply cannot be reached. Diamond Hard dense. RECOGNIZE.

No, I dont believe that Jordan's return from baseball meant a higher orlando/Houston rating than the New York/Houston rating the year before.

I attribute at least 90% of it to Penny Hardaway and Shaquille Oneal's national appeal in the mid 90s.

Blue Chips (Nick Nolte movie starring both Shaq and Penny). Lil Penny. Shaq tearing down back boards. Shaq rapping on Arsenio Hall. Shaq's rivalry with Hakeem Olajuwon (they had Taco bell commercials together).

Take yourself back to the mid 90s. The Orlando Magic was HUGE.

[KaiRMD1]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[da_suns_fan]

From Bleacher Report:


Another player you could have added to the list is a guy by the name of Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway, O'Neal's teammate during his days with the Orlando Magic. If you followed the NBA in the 1990s, then this man doesn't need any introduction.

Everybody knew Penny back then.

He had his own Nike kicks, a puppet named "Lil' Penny" and was one of the league's most exciting stars. Tons of fans across the country sported his pinstriped No. 1 Orlando jersey.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/582136-orlando-magic-what-if-shaq-and-a-healthy-penny-hardaway-had-stayed-together

[Man In Black]

B-side attraction...recognize.

Answer the question....do you really think that if Jeremy Lin did exactly the same thing he did, but he was playing for Milwaukee, that he would have the SAME amount of attention?

Answer the question.

[Man In Black]

The fact that you used Bleacher report as your source of info is laughable.

I lived the 70's and beyond in Basketball.

I know about the bicycle built for 2 commercials with Shaq and Hakeem. Hell I knew Hakeem when he was known as Akeem. But seriously, if you're telling us that Jordan's mere presence isn't going to affect ratings, then why does the NBA stick to the star theory instead of the team theory like the NFL? It's because that's all they know how to do. For the NBA and their media partners, principally, the 4letter network. It's easy for them to push American Made College Stars like Kevin Durant and Russel Westbrook as opposed to 2 International Basketball Players like Parker and Ginobili. If you don't get that...then you haven't been watching at all. It's Nationalism at it's finest. To get past it, you have to be media-approachable. The Spurs stars are not...probably because that's how Pop wants it. A guy like Manny Pacquiao is approachable. That's what makes it possible for him, a Filipino, to be more likable than Floyd Mayweather, an American, who does himself no favors in popularity other than making gobs of cash, because he wants to be the villain. Nationalism exists and it happens to the Spurs. So much so, that the media uses Selective Mutism to find a way to not talk about the Spurs.

But fuck it....4 titles later. Spurs fan is happy with rings.

[SamoanTD]

The fact that you used Bleacher report as your source of info is laughable.

I lived the 70's and beyond in Basketball.

I know about the bicycle built for 2 commercials with Shaq and Hakeem. Hell I knew Hakeem when he was known as Akeem. But seriously, if you're telling us that Jordan's mere presence isn't going to affect ratings, then why does the NBA stick to the star theory instead of the team theory like the NFL? It's because that's all they know how to do. For the NBA and their media partners, principally, the 4letter network. It's easy for them to push American Made College Stars like Kevin Durant and Russel Westbrook as opposed to 2 International Basketball Players like Parker and Ginobili. If you don't get that...then you haven't been watching at all. It's Nationalism at it's finest. To get past it, you have to be media-approachable. The Spurs stars are not...probably because that's how Pop wants it. A guy like Manny Pacquiao is approachable. That's what makes it possible for him, a Filipino, to be more likable than Floyd Mayweather, an American, who does himself no favors in popularity other than making gobs of cash, because he wants to be the villain. Nationalism exists and it happens to the Spurs. So much so, that the media uses Selective Mutism to find a way to not talk about the Spurs.

But fuck it....4 titles later. Spurs fan is happy with rings.

Checkmate nicely played sir.

[Marcus Bryant]

The most boring NBA franchise with four championships ever. Got it.

Frankly, popularity among the general American public is not something to be proud of, but I digress.

:toast

[da_suns_fan]

The fact that you used Bleacher report as your source of info is laughable.

I lived the 70's and beyond in Basketball.

I know about the bicycle built for 2 commercials with Shaq and Hakeem. Hell I knew Hakeem when he was known as Akeem. But seriously, if you're telling us that Jordan's mere presence isn't going to affect ratings, then why does the NBA stick to the star theory instead of the team theory like the NFL? It's because that's all they know how to do. For the NBA and their media partners, principally, the 4letter network. It's easy for them to push American Made College Stars like Kevin Durant and Russel Westbrook as opposed to 2 International Basketball Players like Parker and Ginobili. If you don't get that...then you haven't been watching at all. It's Nationalism at it's finest. To get past it, you have to be media-approachable. The Spurs stars are not...probably because that's how Pop wants it. A guy like Manny Pacquiao is approachable. That's what makes it possible for him, a Filipino, to be more likable than Floyd Mayweather, an American, who does himself no favors in popularity other than making gobs of cash, because he wants to be the villain. Nationalism exists and it happens to the Spurs. So much so, that the media uses Selective Mutism to find a way to not talk about the Spurs.

But fuck it....4 titles later. Spurs fan is happy with rings.

No, I dont think Jordan's mere presence affects ratings.

Luckily for me, Jordan retired THREE TIMES!!!

Thus, lets look at what happened when Jordan came out of retirement a second time (and wasnt in the finals).

NBC 2001 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 1 12.1
NBC 2002 Los Angeles Lakers 4, New Jersey Nets 0 10.2 (Jordan comes back)

Ratings went D-D-D-Down!!!

Holy crap. That just KILLED your argument.

So maybe the finals ratings has more to do with the two teams actually playing and less to with whether or not his airness was in the league, yes?

[Man In Black]

You cannot be this dense...but just reading your posts prove that you are without a doubt.

First...you use Jordan Era as a hypothesis about how small market succeeds. Playing up the B-side attractions.

So now you want to use Jordan, who no longer is at the peak of his skills AKA Prime...playing for the Washington Wizards no less, as a draw to prove your argument?

Tell me...Did the Wizards make the playoffs Jordan's final year there? NO...So again...No Jordan lead in for the playoffs...but check the ratings for the Wizards when he played as opposed to when he did not.

You can't handle the truth...that's why you lie to prop up your argument.
Also...why does it take you an hour to respond? You need to learn how to google faster.

But in case you need scientific proof that Jordan's mere presence affects TV ratings well...
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/05/22/nba-finals-tv-ratings-1974-2008/19324/

Quick, guess which year was Michael Jordan's last in the NBA Finals?

Marketed far more on the power of individual stars than any other US team sport, NBA Basketball suffers the most when it lacks those charismatic stars in postseason play.

1987-1989 were the end of the Magic Johnson/Larry Bird era. 1990 saw an interim year and a ratings low. 1991 began the Michael Jordan championship era, with the Chicago Bulls winning championships in 1991, 1992 and 1993. During Jordan's minor league baseball excursion years of 1994 & 1995, the Hakeem Olajuwon lead Houston Rockets didn't have nearly the star power and ratings crashed again.

Tired of being a mediocre baseball player, Jordan's return brought NBA postseason ratings up again for 1996, 1997 and 1998. His final year being the best finals ratings of his career (and the highest HH ratings we have in our data going back to 1974). Another interim year after Jordan's exit and ratings plunged again. One might have thought that the Kobe/Shaq lead LA Lakers might have raised ratings back to Jordanesqe levels, but they merely halted the decline near the 1990 & 1994 lows from 2000-2002.
You've just been FACIALIZED. You might as well pick up your ball and go home.

[Man In Black]

Holy shit suns fan...you have no retort whatsoever because facts is facts.

I gave you a fuckin' graph to prove the Jordan effect. Do you believe that?

Yup...that happened. 1 hour later....you got nada. :lmao

All that posturing and BAM...Freight trained by a fucking graph by the company whose primary function is to measure and explain TV ratings. A company that I USED TO WORK FOR.

Ain't that a bitch?

[DarrinS]

I'm SHOCKED that a finals featuring a three-time MVP and a three-time scoring leader would have high ratings!!!

SHOCKED!!!

[dg7md]

Stop caring about the Spurs and their fans as much as you do, Suns fan.

[Venti Quattro]

Who says the Spurs are boring?

[K-State Spur]

Congrats Suns fan. You were the no accomplishment, high ratings darlings of that era - you were the Jersey Shore of the NBA.

The Spurs were the niche cable series that you had to know something about the game to appreciate - our team was Game of Thrones.

[FromWayDowntown]

Congrats Suns fan. You were the no accomplishment, high ratings darlings of that era - you were the Jersey Shore of the NBA.

The Spurs were the niche cable series that you had to know something about the game to appreciate - our team was Game of Thrones.

Yup. Suns won People's Choice awards; Spurs won Emmys.

[Gino]

.

[da_suns_fan]

You cannot be this dense...but just reading your posts prove that you are without a doubt.

First...you use Jordan Era as a hypothesis about how small market succeeds. Playing up the B-side attractions.

So now you want to use Jordan, who no longer is at the peak of his skills AKA Prime...playing for the Washington Wizards no less, as a draw to prove your argument?

Tell me...Did the Wizards make the playoffs Jordan's final year there? NO...So again...No Jordan lead in for the playoffs...but check the ratings for the Wizards when he played as opposed to when he did not.

You can't handle the truth...that's why you lie to prop up your argument.
Also...why does it take you an hour to respond? You need to learn how to google faster.

But in case you need scientific proof that Jordan's mere presence affects TV ratings well...
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2009/05/22/nba-finals-tv-ratings-1974-2008/19324/

You've just been FACIALIZED. You might as well pick up your ball and go home.

I want you to understand. I should have given up on you a while ago but I honestly feel sorry for you.

The article you just quoted says that ratings were down in 94 and 95 because the Rockets werent the draw Jordan was. What I want to know is WHY the ratings in 95 were higher than in 94. That article you quoted doesnt go into that at all.

Just to be CLEAR, my theory is this: The Orlando Magic were a bigger national draw in 1995 than the Kicks were in 1994 and this is why 1995 had a bigger rating than 1994 (even though both finals were against the Rockets).

Youre claiming that none of this matters and the only reason ratings went down in 94 and then back up in 95 is because Jordan was out of the league in 94 and back in 95.

Does it matter? Regardless, you just admitted that market sizes DONT MATTER and the only thing that does matter is whether or not Jordan is in the league.

My tangent on Jordan's years with the Wizards was just to prove that your "Jordan effect" on finals in which HE DOESNT PLAY is stupid. The Jordan effect means high finals ratings when Jordan was in the finals. To say he affected finals ratings when he wasnt there is quite the stretch.

Youre telling me that if you asked someone who watched Magic/Rockets but skipped Knicks/Rockets the year before why they were watched the former and not the latter they would say "Well jordan is back in the league so i CARE again?" Do you even understand how incredibly stupid you are?

I say this (again) but you STILL wont get it. You'll try to argue that game in which Jordan plays have high ratings (which I never disputed) or that ratings increased when Jordan was back in the finals (which I never disputed either).

You dont even understand what we're arguing. You just dont get it.

[da_suns_fan]

I'm SHOCKED that a finals featuring a three-time MVP and a three-time scoring leader would have high ratings!!!

SHOCKED!!!

Duncan was a two-time MVP and Lebron has scoring titles.

Yet the Spurs and Cavs set the ratings low mark.

[tesseractive]

Duncan was a two-time MVP and Lebron has scoring titles.

Yet the Spurs and Cavs set the ratings low mark.

Spurs ran over LeBron like a freight train. Not much to watch, tbh, unless you're a Spurs fan.

[da_suns_fan]

Spurs ran over LeBron like a freight train. Not much to watch, tbh, unless you're a Spurs fan.

CORRECT!!!

A spurs fan with a brain! I had my doubts after reading all that crap from "Man in Black".

[SamoanTD]

Duncan was a two-time MVP and Lebron has scoring titles.

Yet the Spurs and Cavs set the ratings low mark.

Yea Duncan was a MVP like 5 years before they played Lebron fail example. Durant and Lebron are Scoring champ and MVP right now.

[K-State Spur]

Also ignored here is that this is OKC's first finals rodeo - which tends to draw more interest. "Old Hat" finalists don't do as well.

The '99 Spurs/Knicks series drew better ratings than the Lakers/Nets in '02.

If Durant gets to 3 or 4 of these without providing any off-court drama, the casual fans will likely stop tuning in there as well.

[da_suns_fan]

Also ignored here is that this is OKC's first finals rodeo - which tends to draw more interest. "Old Hat" finalists don't do as well.

The '99 Spurs/Knicks series drew better ratings than the Lakers/Nets in '02.

If Durant gets to 3 or 4 of these without providing any off-court drama, the casual fans will likely stop tuning in there as well.

Why didnt Cleveland's first finals "rodeo" draw interest?

ITs not like they were missing star power.


Likewise, the biggest Finals ratings of all time was the Bulls' SIXTH time to the finals and second straight finals against the Jazz.

In fact, the Bulls' first trip to the finals against the Lakers was one of their lowest rated appearances (Depsite the larget media markets).

[da_suns_fan]

Yea Duncan was a MVP like 5 years before they played Lebron fail example. Durant and Lebron are Scoring champ and MVP right now.

Umm..okay.

How bout 2003? Duncan was MVP THAT year and they set worst finals rating of all time in the finals against the Nets (until they broke their own record in 2007).

Keep bringing the excuses, I'll keep shooting them down. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Keep bringing the excuses, I'll keep shooting them down. :lolKeep obsessing over the Spurs, I'll keep laughing at you. :lol

[Man In Black]

Tail between your legs...and you keep moving the fuckin' goalpost.

Again...Market Size Matters. In Addition having Media Friendly Stars Matter, If they are American Born, then that's all the better. When you have all 3...you have the Holy Grail for American Network TV and Q Ratings.

For OKC, they are in a small market. But they have 3 marketable stars who are American Born.It's their first go around and then there is the hate factor. Miami has hate factor. The Decision, the Rock Concert, the proclamation for 7 titles. It's the same thing for floyd mayweather. Some people buy his fights hoping they will see him lose...REALITY.

You claim Utah was the draw in 1998. WTF? The fact is, Jordan's Bulls were the A-side attraction. Going into the season, the NBA let it be known that this was effectively the last season that Phil Jackson was going to coach there, that Michael was likely to retire, and that this was the Bull's last hurrah. That's why they drew such a large TV viewership. You get that don't you?


For the Spurs, they too are in a small market, they have stars but they are all listed as International. Tim's American but from the US Virgin Islands. Parker is French, Ginobili an Argentinian, but they don't allow themselves to become household names because the organization prefers for them to be low-key. They'll grant interviews but you won't see them playing any of their commercials in a national rotation. That's intended because all they care about is winning basketball. And it's worked out pretty well for them. It doesn't make for good ratings.

They did pretty well when they played Detroit.2 Solid teams playing basketall going the full 7 games got 12.5 million viewers.

It worked out well when they played New York for their 1st Title. New York Metro plus the 1st title for a league with no Jordan. That year they got 16 million viewers.

The New Jersey Ratings were due to people not tuning in because the LAL could not CUATROW. The Cleveland ratings were due to people knowing that the Spurs were about to lay the beatdown on young LBJ, which they did to the tune of 4-0. No intrigue whatsoever plus since the National Media keeps portraying the Spurs as boring, casual fan viewership is affected. if Durant and Westbrook were teammates with TD, then perhaps the national media would give them more attention. But they're not...doesn't matter. Spurs still have 4 titles. Is there an NBA Ratings Larry O'Brien Tropy?


Okay wasn't it you who said this?

No, I dont think Jordan's mere presence affects ratings.


It's Jordan...I mean fuck man...can you read a graph?

http://i48.tinypic.com/wsnq7m.gif

Then you claim this:
Just to be CLEAR, my theory is this: The Orlando Magic were a bigger national draw in 1995 than the Knicks were in 1994 and this is why 1995 had a bigger rating than 1994 (even though both finals were against the Rockets).

No...The Orlando Magic wasn't the draw you claim they were. If they were as big as you say, then why did Shaq choose to leave for Tinseltown? Since they were, as you say, a bigger national draw?



Youre claiming that none of this matters and the only reason ratings went down in 94 and then back up in 95 is because Jordan was out of the league in 94 and back in 95.
About the only thing you got right out of your whole deal...except it wasn't you. It was me and the rest of the TV Viewership as reported by Nielsen Media.

Check the graph. You can read one right?
94 had around 17 million viewers, 95 with a Jordan lead-in, they had an uptick to over 20 million. That extra 3 million was prompted by the return of Jordan to the Eastern Conference Finals. If you can't realize that...then you are incredibly dense. Fuck it...you're dense.

Since Jordan left, even with a star-laden league, the NBA hasn't sniffed 20 million viewers since for any Finals played. Every year he played in the playoffs, which mostly resulted in a finals appearance. Viewership is over 20 Million. The one year 1994, he isn't in the NBA at all. It dropped to 17 Million.

What's so hard to understand about that? Casual fan moves the extra 3million. Casual fan likes Jordan and wants to watch him play. Casual fan sees him in the Eastern Conference Finals and sees him lose, but is left with a decent Hakeem-Shaq matchup...so they stick around.

It's like talking to a pre-schooler. You need to go buy hooked-on-phonics suns fan.


To say he(Jordan) affected finals ratings when he wasnt there is quite the stretch.
You can read a graph right? Him not being around anymore is the reason the NBA keeps trying to give a player the title of the Next Jordan. Because without one, the NBA keeps missing the 20M viewership mark. It's obvious that Bean Bryant ain't Jordan, even with the Celtics as the opponent, 2 big markets, they didn't sniff 20. They hit 14.9 Mill. That's less than the 99 Spurs.

[Budkin]

It's clear that OP will never get over losing to the Spurs when it really mattered. At least you lost to the champs. You should feel grateful.

[Man In Black]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BkMOQttHv4o/TodPIwFs2wI/AAAAAAAAC4U/RY85orUf9TY/s1600/steve-nash-phoenix-bloody-nose-nba-funny-photos.jpg
This is how you look right now Suns fan.

[Man In Black]

The Jordan Effect
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/551758_444497868907808_101426929_n.jpg

[da_suns_fan]

No...The Orlando Magic wasn't the draw you claim they were. If they were as big as you say, then why did Shaq choose to leave for Tinseltown? Since they were, as you say, a bigger national draw?



Because Shaq wanted to be in films.



Check the graph. You can read one right?
94 had around 17 million viewers, 95 with a Jordan lead-in, they had an uptick to over 20 million. That extra 3 million was prompted by the return of Jordan to the Eastern Conference Finals. If you can't realize that...then you are incredibly dense. Fuck it...you're dense.



Do you even REALIZE that what you are claiming is that

A) Market sizes "Matter"

B) Orlando (small market) got three million more viewers in the 95 finals than New York (largest market) did in 94 finals because Jordan played in the Eastern Conference finals in 95.

If Jordan's presence in the playoffs is enough to compensate (And then some) for Orlando's small market size, then SURELY you must admit that market sizes dont matter!!! :lol

Do you understand?!! You cant have both!

You cant say "market sizes matter BUT Jordan's playoff presence can compensate for an Orlando/New York market size discrepancy even when he's not in the finals"

Thats not a "Jordan effect". Thats just stupid. :lol

Game. Set. Match.

[K-State Spur]

Why didnt Cleveland's first finals "rodeo" draw interest?


Because the media and casual fans wrote off their chances before it even started.

And Lebron despite being the talent that he was, wasn't a ratings draw until he went decision/pep rally on everybody.

Anyhow, I don't care who else watched the '07 finals. I saw it, Spurs won. Also saw the '07 WC Semifinals too.

[TE]

Wow, Suns fan is still reeling from all defeats back in the day. :lol

Give it up, its been years, you're a grown man.

[Man In Black]

Because Shaq wanted to be in films.



Do you even REALIZE that what you are claiming is that

A) Market sizes "Matter"



They do...did you ever answer the Jeremy Lin question if he did that while playing in Milwaukee, would the media exposure be EXACTLY THE SAME?



B) Orlando (small market) got three million more viewers in the 95 finals than New York (largest market) did in 94 finals because Jordan played in the Eastern Conference finals in 95.

That time, Orlando got the benefit of being the team to knock out #45 Michael Jordan. Casual fan and NBA fan alike stuck around to see if Shaq's team could win the title OR if Houston could repeat. Impetus for sticking around. Again....if it was New York playing again, AFTER beating #45, then that matchup would have been higher than Orlando....get that? NO YOU DON'T CAUSE YOU'RE A FUCKIN' IDIOT. :lmao



If Jordan's presence in the playoffs is enough to compensate (And then some) for Orlando's small market size, then SURELY you must admit that market sizes dont matter!!! :lol


Market sizes matter. That's why Household counts are quantified and that's why they have a ratings system.

A minor-league star like Jeremy Lin was White Hot in New York. If he played in Milwaukee, then what? WAY LESS PUB. You get that right? No you don't because you're a fuckin' idiot.


Do you understand?!! You cant have both!


You can have a major league star in a huge tv market. That alone makes for great ratings especially if you're as transcendental as Jordan.



You cant say "market sizes matter BUT Jordan's playoff presence can compensate for an Orlando/New York market size discrepancy even when he's not in the finals"

I just did and I tried to re-explain it to you again...you're just that stupid.


Thats not a "Jordan effect". Thats just stupid. :lol


The Jordan effect is still going on, but in today's NBA, it shows that since he isn't there, the ratings suffer in a negative term. There hasn't been anyone that is capable of being as transcendental as him...hence the lower ratings since he left. That is the Jordan effect as it lingers.

Game. Set. Match. Goes to the Man In Black...Thanks to you for being a stupid fuck.

3 factors for TV ratings in the USA when it comes to NBA.
Market Size 1st
Media-Friendly Marketable Superstar 2nd
American Born 3rd

OKC has 2 of those factors in their favor. As does Miami.
San Antonio has none of those factors when it comes to their team. NONE and Pop doesn't give a shit.

Market size is a boost for sure, but it ain't the end all be all, but it's still important. Chicago being top 3 DMA or Designated Media Area didn't hurt the Bulls run during Jordan.

Chicago #3
Jordan-MediaGod
American Born-North Carolina and 2 time Gold Medalist who played at University of North Carolina. That's the Holy Grail.

Dallas #5
Nowitzki-Media Friendly
Not American.

OKC #45
Durant-Media Friendly Superstar
American Born

NYC #1
Jeremy Lin-Media-Friendly Minor Star
American Born
For 3 weeks, he was all the NBA talked about. Again, if he played exactly the same way in Milwaukee...way less pub.

2 of 3 helps a lot. 3 of 3 = Holy Grail.


It's amazing you disregard this tidbit of info from the Nielsen link:

Marketed far more on the power of individual stars than any other US team sport, NBA Basketball suffers the most when it lacks those charismatic stars in postseason play.

Are you tired of not getting it yet?
:lmao

[DeadlyDynasty]

I see the fishin's been good.:lol

[da_suns_fan]

That time, Orlando got the benefit of being the team to knock out #45 Michael Jordan. Casual fan and NBA fan alike stuck around to see if Shaq's team could win the title OR if Houston could repeat. Impetus for sticking around. Again....if it was New York playing again, AFTER beating #45, then that matchup would have been higher than Orlando....get that? NO YOU DON'T CAUSE YOU'RE A FUCKIN' IDIOT. :lmao



Everything else you said was jibberish and off-subject (American name etc) so Im just going to quote this.

What you just said proves my point.

In spite of the fact that Orlando is a small market size:

"Casual fan and NBA fan alike stuck around to see if Shaq's team could win the title OR if Houston could repeat."

So why is it that "casual fans" never stuck around to watch the Spurs play in the finals?

What you just said proves that teams in small market sizes are capable of being exposed to "casual fans".

Why is this? Because the NBA is on national TV on four different channels almost every week. Regardless of market size, you can get plenty of exposure if your team is exciting (just ask the freaking THUNDER). People arent seeing the Thunder for the first time in the finals. Every single one of their playoff games has been on national TV.

Likewise, the Spurs have had a plethera of national tv appearances over the last decade. They cant blame low ratings due to "lack of exposure".

Your "Jordan effect when hes not even in the finals" deserves ZERO more discussion. You have failed to convince anybody, not just me. If you dont believe me, ask one of your fellow Spurs fans. Or I'll do it for you:

SPURS FANS: WHY DID THE 95 FINALS HAVE MORE VIEWERS THAN THE 94 FINALS?

Lets see what their answer is.

[DontStopBelieving]

How the fuck does spursfan get trolled by sunsfan so easily? :lol

[TheCerebral1]

LMAO every pick of the major three (Durant, Westbrook, Harden) were lottery picks from being awful. Aside from Ibaka there really isn't a major exception of a starter that isn't a lottery pick. The Spurs have had one lottery pick in 15 years. Tim Duncan.

[DontStopBelieving]

League driven by superstars +
Spurs having the most boring superstar to ever play the game
= Low ratings.

[da_suns_fan]

How the fuck does spursfan get trolled by sunsfan so easily? :lol

Because this has been the Spurs fan excuse of choice for the past decade and OKC just destroyed it.

[Stringer_Bell]

How does this clown get 5 pages of responses and good kids with good threads barely get 5 responses?

Who gives a shit how low the ratings are for the Spurs? And who makes excuses for it? I'm pretty sure the answer to both questions is "nobody," but maybe someone has a better answer.

[Lincoln]

no one give a fuck bout dem spurs, when they in da finals I ain't watch dat cuz they boring as fuckkkk!!!

[Man In Black]

So why is it that "casual fans" never stuck around to watch the Spurs play in the finals?

1-Small Market

2-Stars aren't media friendly marketable intentionally.

3-Not American Born.

Don't agree? Let TP tell you himself. Tony Parker explains it best.

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2010/10/tim-duncan-we-dont-get-that-respect/

TP:I always say if we did what we did in New York, we’d be gods right now.’ ‘I think the fact that me and Manu are international players, I don’t think we get the same respect. Because we’re not from America, I think that’s why we’re not considered up there with the Bostons, or the Lakers or Chicago.’

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2012/02/25/mike-monroe-parker-deserves-to-be-in-mvp-conversation/

Parker understands the media dynamic in the NBA. Eighteen months ago, when the NBA-loving world had gone gaga about the Heat’s new Big Three, he pondered how the Spurs’ Big Three — Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Parker — would be perceived had they won three titles together in a major media market.

“I always say if we did what we did in New York or Chicago, we’d be gods right now,” he said.

Do you get it now or not dumbass? Market size matters. TP knows it. However, like him....we realize that ratings does not equal championships.

You wouldn't know....your team hasn't won one....ever. :flag:

[Agloco]

Because this has been the Spurs fan excuse of choice for the past decade and OKC just destroyed it.

OK.

Your thread still reeks of butt-hurt though.

[KaiRMD1]

I gotta say, Suns fan seems like more of a Spurs fan than all of you right now. You should all be ashamed of yourselves as Spurs fans

[doldrums]

No doubt in my mind that if tp and manu played in new york, they'd be gods here. Don't know if i would say the same about Tim.

[J21]

Because this has been the Spurs fan excuse of choice for the past decade and OKC just destroyed it.

Excuse for what?

[DMC]

Typical momentary sports fan doesn't get excited about fundamentally flawless play. He gets excited about superstars he can pretend to be in the video game he plays.

[da_suns_fan]

1-Small Market

2-Stars aren't media friendly marketable intentionally.

3-Not American Born.

Don't agree? Let TP tell you himself. Tony Parker explains it best.

http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2010/10/tim-duncan-we-dont-get-that-respect/


http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2012/02/25/mike-monroe-parker-deserves-to-be-in-mvp-conversation/



1 - Yet you claimed that Jordan merely being in the conference finals (but not the NBA finals) was enough to get any small market team a good rating. Btw - this has to be the dumbest theory Ive ever read on this board. Dont believe me? Ask your Spurs fan buddies.

2. Stars are INTENTIONALLY non-marketable?!!! They CHOOSE to be boring?!! Well that explains the small rating then, huh? Dont have to use the "Small market excuse" when you say "our players are intentionally boring". This is complete bullshit as well, btw.

3. Tim Duncan is American. Dirk Nowitzki is not. Ive never heard Dirk called "Boring". He shreds the "international players cant be stars" argument. Sorry to bust your bubble, but its true.

btw - The Thunder have Serge Ibaka. They have international players too yet they have no trouble getting ratings.


Oh - And as for Tony Tunrover's quote, he sounds pretty butt hurt to me. Im pretty sure if the exact same Spurs team was in New York, folks across the country would continue to not watch.

Keep grasping at different straws. Keep bringing the different excuses (market size, Jordan's location, place of birth, boring by choice etc). Each one from you gets worse and worse. I thought the "Jordan was in the conference finals" excuse for why Orlando got a good rating was bizarre but the "we choose to be boring" is now number one in the "man in black bullshit excuses for low ratings". :lol

[Man In Black]

1 - Yet you claimed that Jordan merely being in the conference finals (but not the NBA finals) was enough to get any small market team a good rating. Btw - this has to be the dumbest theory Ive ever read on this board. Dont believe me? Ask your Spurs fan buddies.
Sigh...can't believe you are THIS DUMB AS FUCK.
The 95 Finals benefited having Jordan back in the NBA. That is why a HOU-ORL finals drew more than the 94 Finals which had No Jordan at all. Did the graph and the facts not tell you that? I mean hell...it's a fact, that's why it was analyzed and explained exactly that way. I didn't make that shit up...It happened like that. That's the way the author explained it did he not? You are DUMB AS FUCK. Did you not read the article?

You asked my Spursfan peers here. It's no wonder they haven't given you an answer because you're DUMB AS FUCK.


2. Stars are INTENTIONALLY non-marketable?!!! They CHOOSE to be boring?!! Well that explains the small rating then, huh? Dont have to use the "Small market excuse" when you say "our players are intentionally boring". This is complete bullshit as well, btw.

No...San Antonio's Stars are intentionally not media-friendly. While they may suffer from lost endorsements because of not being media friendly, they don't give a fuck it that makes them non-marketable. Whatever becomes of anything after that, is made up bullshit by the media partners of the NBA. Call them boring all you want. It doesn't change the fact that they whupped the Suns asses multiple times on the way to multiple championships.



3. Tim Duncan is American. Dirk Nowitzki is not. Ive never heard Dirk called "Boring". He shreds the "international players cant be stars" argument. Sorry to bust your bubble, but its true.


Is Tim really an American? Yes, but is that how the NBA and the media partners see it? Well let's see. The NBA actually has a definition for what they term is an International Player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_NBA_players


The following is a list of foreign players in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The NBA defines an "international player" as a player who was born outside the United States. The "United States" is defined as solely the fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Therefore, players who were born in U.S. overseas territories, such as Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, are considered as international players, even though they are U.S. citizens
Fuck...there it is again. In black and white. Tim is listed as an International.

About Dirk...up until he finally got the chip, he was boring and had no ring. We called him NORINGSKI for that same reason. Last finals, the enemy was the MIAMI Heat and between either team, it was much easier for one to back Dallas than the hated Miami Heat.




btw - The Thunder have Serge Ibaka. They have international players too yet they have no trouble getting ratings.


So are you saying that Serge is now a bigger draw than Americans named Durant, Westbrook, and Harden? Is that what you're saying? :lmao



Oh - And as for Tony Tunrover's quote, he sounds pretty butt hurt to me. Im pretty sure if the exact same Spurs team was in New York, folks across the country would continue to not watch.



The guy said it not once, but twice. It got published and printed. He's the player, telling you, telling us, telling everybody...that he feels that him being an International AND playing in small market San Antonio is a principal reason that him and his team don't get respect. In black and white, he tells you...yet in a show of your full-on stupidity, you choose to disregard Tony Parker.

Fuck...you can't be this dumb. But the more we read your responses, all doubt is easily removed.



Keep grasping at different straws. Keep bringing the different excuses (market size, Jordan's location, place of birth, boring by choice etc). Each one from you gets worse and worse. I thought the "Jordan was in the conference finals" excuse for why Orlando got a good rating was bizarre but the "we choose to be boring" is now number one in the "man in black bullshit excuses for low ratings". :lol

I can't believe you don't have any sort of reading comprehension. AZ Schools can be that bad. I mean I went to school in Arizona so it can't be the system there. It must be simply that YOU...YOU are truly this dumb. Your intelligence level matches a garbage pail. It's appropriate, because you're nothing but trash.
:lmao
fuk you and yo team clown :hat

[Man In Black]

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/06/10/guess-the-lebron-james-heat-v-kevin-durants-thunder-nba-finals-tv-ratings-poll-historical-data/137404/

Updated to include last year's stats. Disprove the author.

[temujin]

1 - Yet you claimed that Jordan merely being in the conference finals (but not the NBA finals) was enough to get any small market team a good rating. Btw - this has to be the dumbest theory Ive ever read on this board. Dont believe me? Ask your Spurs fan buddies.

2. Stars are INTENTIONALLY non-marketable?!!! They CHOOSE to be boring?!! Well that explains the small rating then, huh? Dont have to use the "Small market excuse" when you say "our players are intentionally boring". This is complete bullshit as well, btw.

3. Tim Duncan is American. Dirk Nowitzki is not. Ive never heard Dirk called "Boring". He shreds the "international players cant be stars" argument. Sorry to bust your bubble, but its true.

btw - The Thunder have Serge Ibaka. They have international players too yet they have no trouble getting ratings.


Oh - And as for Tony Tunrover's quote, he sounds pretty butt hurt to me. Im pretty sure if the exact same Spurs team was in New York, folks across the country would continue to not watch.

Keep grasping at different straws. Keep bringing the different excuses (market size, Jordan's location, place of birth, boring by choice etc). Each one from you gets worse and worse. I thought the "Jordan was in the conference finals" excuse for why Orlando got a good rating was bizarre but the "we choose to be boring" is now number one in the "man in black bullshit excuses for low ratings". :lol

Please mention that the TV ratings in Congo are also WAY up.
And in Switzerland, for that matter. Chance is, they even have TVs, in Switzerland, and I am sure they will wake up in the middle of the night to watch this guy Sefaloscha.
So exciting to have OKC-Miami, not the boring Spurs with their small market stars in Argentina-France.

:lol:lol:lol

[da_suns_fan]

Sigh...can't believe you are THIS DUMB AS FUCK.
The 95 Finals benefited having Jordan back in the NBA. That is why a HOU-ORL finals drew more than the 94 Finals which had No Jordan at all. Did the graph and the facts not tell you that? I mean hell...it's a fact, that's why it was analyzed and explained exactly that way. I didn't make that shit up...It happened like that. That's the way the author explained it did he not? You are DUMB AS FUCK. Did you not read the article?



Heres what you dont get: EVEN if that were true, that would mean market sizes dont matter.

You see, if Jordan's mere presence is enough to make that much difference, then market sizes are truly negligible. I know this because the market size difference between Orlando and New York is huge.

You are claiming is that market sizes matter and Orlando/New York WOULD have had a much, much, much lower rating than New York/Houston except that Jordan was in the playoffs that year and that compensated (and then some) for the small Orlando market size.


Show me in your link where is says THAT. It doesnt, because its the dumbest thing Ive ever read. The "Author" claims that both 94 AND 95 had low ratings because of NO JORDAN. Obviously, reading comprehension eludes you:


During Jordan's minor league baseball excursion years of 1994 & 1995, the Hakeem Olajuwon lead Houston Rockets didn't have nearly the star power and ratings crashed again.

Thats the only mention of 1995 in your entire article.

Now either show me where the author explains why 1995 was better than 1994 or admit that you are wrong.

You wont, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Youve already embarrassed the shit out of yourself.

[Frank Dux]

Five years later duh_suns_fan is still obsessing over the Spurs...and still talking about ratings. :lol

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQswLlPf9sVw8mscYc14h8K30vR2YEvU 5HUTqiK3RD_gVwZy2WT

[da_suns_fan]

Ranking of nba team market sizes
based on conglomerate urban area population of home cities

1. Knicks/Nets 22,232,000
3. Lakers/Clippers 17,820,000
5. Bulls 9,804,000
6. Celtics 7,609,000
7. Warriors 7,427,000
8. Mavericks 6,805,000
9. 76'ers 6,533,000
10. Rockets 5,968,000
11. Hawks 5,831,000
12. Heat 5,547,000
13. Raptors 5,500,000
14. Wizards 5,400,000
15. Pistons 5,327,000
16. Suns 4,364,000
17. Timberwolves 3,604,000
18. Nuggets 3,110,000
19. Cavs 2,891,000
20. Magic 2,747,000
21. Kings 2,436,000
22. Bobcats 2,389,000
23. Blazers 2,241,000
24. Spurs 2,072,000
25. Pacers 2,064,000
26. Bucks 1,760,000
27. Jazz 1,743,000
28. Grizzlies 1,304,000
29. Thunder 1,297,000
30. Hornets 1,235,000


Yet what Man in Black is claiming is that

A) Market sizes matter

B) Orlando got a bigger rating than New York (despite the fact that New York is TEN TIMES the size of Orlando) because Jordan played in the eastern conference finals.

Cant make this shit up.

[PublicOption]

I think we were the small market "token". OKC is that now and since they have Durant and Westbrook the "small market token" label has been passed. Not by OKC, but David Stern.

[rascal]

Star power over rides market size, but market size comes into play.

New teams with their first trip to the finals with super star players will draw interest.

[Man In Black]

Yet what Man in Black is claiming is that

A) Market sizes matter

B) Orlando got a bigger rating than New York (despite the fact that New York is TEN TIMES the size of Orlando) because Jordan played in the eastern conference finals.

Cant make this shit up.
You conveniently seem to leave out the A size attraction. Houston is where on this list?
Number 10 market plus they were going for a repeat. But again, it needs to be made clear that Jordan helped bring casual fan back.
Again... link provided for proof.
partners.nytimes.com/library/sports/basketball/011399bkn-jordan-tv.html

-- The finals with Jordan always beat the finals without him. The six
won by Chicago have ranged in ratings from a 14.2 to an 18.7. The
championships won by the Houston Rockets in 1994, when Jordan
retired to play baseball, and 1995, when Jordan played a partial
season, produced ratings of a 12.3 and a 13.9.
"I'd be crazy to say that there weren't a large number of people who
watched the finals just because of Michael," said Ebersol, who never
regretted showing Jordan as often as possible. "Did 'Wide World of
Sports' show Muhammad Ali too much in the 1960s? It's what the
public wants."


Having again proven my point, it behooves me yet again to point out that it just isn't the Jordan effect. Although there are many articles that OP could have simply googled to learn about it,he continues to say Jordan wasn't a factor for the 95 Finals. About market size, NY metro will always be the largest DMA aka Designated Market or Media Area. You saying that had Tim, Tony, Manu and the players who won 4 titles were called the NY Knicks, that no one would watch then is laughable. Truthfully, other than your assanine opinions, What real proof have you provided?
Answer the question.

[da_suns_fan]

You conveniently seem to leave out the A size attraction. Houston is where on this list?
Number 10 market plus they were going for a repeat. But again, it needs to be made clear that Jordan helped bring casual fan back.
Again... link provided for proof.
partners.nytimes.com/library/sports/basketball/011399bkn-jordan-tv.html



Having again proven my point, it behooves me yet again to point out that it just isn't the Jordan effect. Although there are many articles that OP could have simply googled to learn about it,he continues to say Jordan wasn't a factor for the 95 Finals. About market size, NY metro will always be the largest DMA aka Designated Market or Media Area. You saying that had Tim, Tony, Manu and the players who won 4 titles were called the NY Knicks, that no one would watch then is laughable. Truthfully, other than your assanine opinions, What real proof have you provided?
Answer the question.

Youve failed to prove anything. You dont even realize that what you need to prove is that the Orlando/Houston finals had a higher rating than the New York/Houston finals because Jordan played in the Eastern Conference finals.


THAT is the point I am challenging. All of your links have proved that Finals with Jordan did better with finals without Jordan. No one is disputing that. Its your bizzare "Jordan helped the 95 finals just by appearing in the playoffs" theory thats bullshit.

BTW - In 1995, Orlando was the "A attraction". You think people watched to see Hakeem and Drexler or Shaq and Penny?

If you think Houston, you must not have been around at the time.

[Man In Black]

Can't believe this needs to be explained to you yet again.


The finals with Jordan always beat the finals without him. The six
won by Chicago have ranged in ratings from a 14.2 to an 18.7. The
championships won by the Houston Rockets in 1994, when Jordan
retired to play baseball, and 1995, when Jordan played a partial
season, produced ratings of a 12.3 and a 13.9.

Okay...break this out. Lowest ratings for a final that Jordan actually participated in is a 14.2

In 1994, Houston-the #10 Market played the NY Knicks, the #1 Market. Market Size....No Jordan...they got a rating of 12.
For 1995, what was the draw that brought it up to 13.9? Jordan Effect.

Read that to understand how it's all calculated: It might be beyond you since it's a MIT study on Supertar Effects on the NBA but maybe you'll surprise us...I doubt it though.
http://18.7.29.232/bitstream/handle/1721.1/64241/superstarsinnbae00haus.pdf?sequence=1


To estimate the effect of Jordan on TNT and NBC playoff revenues, we assume that the estimated econometric models can be used to consistently estimate the increase in playoff viewers due to Jordan. We then apply the same procedure as that discussed above for regular season TNT and NBC revenues.We estimate the incremental playoff revenue to other NBA teams to be $2.7 million and $1 1.2 million for TNT and NBC respectively. Finally, we consider the revenue teams receive from NBA Properties. NBA Properties is the part of the NBA which licenses NBA paraphenalia such as clothing and videos. Items associated with Bulls and Michael Jordan have accounted for almost half of NBA Properties revenue. We conservatively estimate the incremental NBA Properties revenue due to Michael Jordan by assuming that, without Jordan,the sales of Bulls items would be only as large as the sales of the second highest team. Under this assumption, we estimate the incremental revenue to other NBA teams to be $15.1 million.

Combining across the categories, we estimate Micahel Jordan's total value to other NBA teams to be $40.3 million.

So a guy, whose mere presence in the NBA, who can generate that kind of value to OTHER teams, is also capable of helping uptick an entire playoff season just by merely having a team in the playoffs. How you cannot comprehend that is asinine.

We both agree that his Finals appearances are the highest rated. Where we differ, is you feel that Orlando(the small market) was the bigger draw than Houston(the larger market) and that they didn't need any Jordan lead-in to get that 13.9 It wasn't Blue-Chips man...That movie sucked at the box office.

You already pointed out that NY is the Largest Market. Houston at #10 with NY at #1 could only get a 12.0 Largely due to Jordan retiring off to play baseball.

On the other end of the spectrum, a Large Market can certainly catapult an event simply because the media loves to create a story that large markets can follow.

Again...answer this question. If Jeremy Lin did exactly the same thing he did as Knick, but he did it as a Milwaukee Buck or Toronto Raptor or even a San Antonio Spur...would the ratings and the national coverage be EXACTLY AT THE SAME LEVEL?

Just answer the question dumbass.

[da_suns_fan]

Can't believe this needs to be explained to you yet again.

For 1995, what was the draw that brought it up to 13.9? Jordan Effect.



THIS is why you are an idiot. Or too proud to just admit that youre wrong.

The reason the ratings for 95 were higher than 94 was because the Shaq/Penny Magic were the most exciting/marketable team in the league and they were in the finals in 95 while as the 94 finals featured the Rockets and Knicks, two teams who werent nearly as popular.

Youre too dumb to even comprehend what the articles you keep posting are even saying. To say that Jordan helps ratings even after his team is eliminated is quite the stretch.

If thats true, I guess the SPURS should get some credit for the high ratings this year, yes? :lol

[Man In Black]

Where is your verifiable proof that the Shaq/Penny Magic was the most exciting/markeatbale team at that time? ANSWER THE QUESTION? You got a link? Of course you don't. That's the diff between me and you. I gave you all the info need. You're just beyond dumb to recognize the facts. Again...where is your proof?

Nope...because the Spurs were never Jordan like. the closest to transcendental that they've ever had are David Robinson and George Gervin. But again...you're too dumb to know that.

Why is it you never answer the Jeremy Lin, small market vs large market question = same coverage yes or no? Answer that question too.

As of this season Lin's Jersey was #2 for the year only behind Derrick Rose. That means his sales were better than Bryant or LBJ. All that and he didn't even play a whole season for the Knicks. Jersey sales were powered for what he did for just a 3-week period.

Why is that? Is it because he's better than them, or is it because he plays for the largest media market in the L? Answer this one too dumbass.

Verifiable proof-Do you got any? Or do you just love making shit up?

[da_suns_fan]

Where is your verifiable proof that the Shaq/Penny Magic was the most exciting/markeatbale team at that time? ANSWER THE QUESTION? You got a link? Of course you don't. That's the diff between me and you. I gave you all the info need. You're just beyond dumb to recognize the facts. Again...where is your proof?


Where did you prove that the 95 finals rating went up because of Jordan's return?

You cant because that is IMPOSSIBLE. No one can measure Jordan's impact on games between teams he didnt play for.

Thats like measuring Kobe's impact on the current finals' rating. Or Dirk's or Duncan's. No different.

Not just admit that youre an idiot and lets be done with this, yes?

As for proving that Orlando was one of the most popular teams, how bout this: They scored a higher television rating against the Houston in the finals than the Knicks did the year before even though they were in a market size one tenth the size of New York. Theres your statistical PROOF. You block for Houston see that Orlando did better than New York in one tenth the city size!

Do you understand how "proofs" work now? Do you understand what "logic" is now?

My guess is you dont and you'll continue on making zero sense and embarrassing your fellow Spurs fans.

[da_suns_fan]

More proof the Orlando magic was popular in 1995:

Penny and Shaq were voted as starters in the all-star game by the fans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NBA_All-Star_Game

[da_suns_fan]

More on Penny's popularity:



Legacy

Hardaway's style of play was rare in the early 1990s. Players of his height were commonly told to play closer to the basket and oftentimes weren't ballhandlers. He was a pass first point guard who could score like a shooting guard. In fact he was the only player during the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons to average 20+ points 5+ assists and shoot above 50% on field goals. Hardaway's style of play was the closest thing the NBA had seen to Magic Johnson. Many NBA players such as LeBron James[3], Gilbert Arenas[4], Kobe Bryant, Joe Johnson, Tracy McGrady[5], Hakim Warrick, Rawle Marshall, Trevor Ariza [6], and Antonio Burks[7]have admitted to idolizing Hardaway when they were growing up.

Hardaway's popularity reached it's peak in the summer of 1996 as he was coming off of two consecutive All-NBA 1st team selections and a selection to the USA Olympic Team. In addition he had the most popular basketball shoe on the market complete with the "Lil Penny" commercial campaign voiced by Chris Rock. On a 1996 telecast of NBA on NBC Michael Jordan said that Hardaway was the player he felt comfortable passing the torch of greatness down to.


Many of the shoes in Hardaway's signature shoe line, "Air Max Penny", have been reissued over the years as a testament to his former popularity.


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52343&page=5

[da_suns_fan]

Oh..btw Man in Black, Penny and Shaq eliminated the Bulls in the second round, NOT THE EASTERN CONFERENCE FINALS!!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NBA_Playoffs

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!


Game. Set. Match. Bitch.

[Man In Black]

Where did you prove that the 95 finals rating went up because of Jordan's return?

You cant because that is IMPOSSIBLE. No one can measure Jordan's impact on games between teams he didnt play for.

Thats like measuring Kobe's impact on the current finals' rating. Or Dirk's or Duncan's. No different.

Not just admit that youre an idiot and lets be done with this, yes?

As for proving that Orlando was one of the most popular teams, how bout this: They scored a higher television rating against the Houston in the finals than the Knicks did the year before even though they were in a market size one tenth the size of New York. Theres your statistical PROOF. You block for Houston see that Orlando did better than New York in one tenth the city size!

Do you understand how "proofs" work now? Do you understand what "logic" is now?

My guess is you dont and you'll continue on making zero sense and embarrassing your fellow Spurs fans.

Damn you're beyond stupid.

You still haven't proven shit. Orlando didn't draw a higher rating alone. They had Houston's help PLUS they got the Jordan lead-in. I'll explain that once and for all later.
You can't just block for Houston. That's like Mayweather Fan saying Floyd is part of the largest PPV fight ever and that he's solely responsible for the draw. The guy he fought was Oscar De la Hoya. Doesn't his presence mean anything? Yeah it does. Oscar was the A-side draw. He was the champ. And before you try to say shit like Penny and Shaq were voted All-Star starters that season, that proves that Orlando was the most marketable team that year, what does it say when it says that same season, Charles Barkley and Dan Majerle were voted starters for the West. 2 guys same team. Doesn't that make them the most marketable team in the NBA at the time?
If you take that a step further, since Grant Hill got the most votes for All-Star that season, does that make him the most marketable player that season? The answer to all of that is simply no. But you probably won't understand that either. It's far too progressive for your feeble mind. I get that.

As for the Jordan lead-in argument. Here it is. You're about to get waxed..yet again. I'll provide a link to prove that it wasn't a theory that I made up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_Association_Nielsen_ratings


The 1993 Finals were Jordan's last before his first retirement. The Houston Rockets would take the next two titles consecutively. The ratings for those next two Finals decreased, but still had above-average views, and the 1995 Finals even came to within .3 ratings points of the 1992 Finals and featured Superstar Shaquille O'Neal making the finals with the Orlando Magic, which were swept 4-0 by the Rockets.

After the two seasons, Jordan returned. Subsequently, and almost instantly, ratings greatly increased. Jordan's first game back, a March 19, 1995 game between the Bulls and the Indiana Pacers, scored a 10.9 rating for NBC, the highest rated regular-season NBA game of all time. Ratings for the Finals (which the Bulls played in the following three years) went up sharply as well.

Think about that. The season in question. The 94-95 Season where I tell you that MJ is the draw that brought the people back. Him just coming back resulted in what? Let's bold this so you understand
Jordan returned. Subsequently, and almost instantly, ratings greatly increased. Jordan's first game back, a March 19, 1995 game between the Bulls and the Indiana Pacers, scored a 10.9 rating for NBC, the highest rated regular-season NBA game of all time. Ratings for the Finals (which the Bulls played in the following three years) went up sharply as well.

Did it just say that ratings for the finals went up sharply as well? Was it preceded by a lead-in that said Orlando's team was the only reason that the ratings went up? Nope, that's not what it says. Need I remind you that Orlando got curb-stomped 4-0 by Olajuwon's Rockets.

It says...Jordan returned that season. His 1st game back was the highest rated regular season game of all time and then...ratingsfor the Finals went up sharply as well.

Is it still a bogus theory as you state or is it, as I've maintained...factual? Eliminated or not...him simply being back in the NBA raised ratings. If it didn't then why is it stated as such?

Despite your ability to prematurely ejaculate, I can tell you now that this conversation should be completely over. Except for the questions you still need to answer and even more so, provide verifiable proof to validate the answers.

I can't teach the unteachable garbage pail. So you're good at trash. What else ya got?

[Man In Black]

Still waiting for those verifiable links...I see you ain't provided any. Which means you're just making up shit.

Per usual.

Carry on dumb fuck-

Jordan Effect....Recognize sun. Never mind...you've just been eclipsed :lmao


Ratings for the finals went up sharply as well.

[Man In Black]

Can't make this shit up...Can only say that you're too stupid to realize how it all works.

Market Size
Media Friendly Stars
Americans Not International Need to be primary.

2 of 3 is all that's needed.
Spurs don't have any of that.

[da_suns_fan]

Can't make this shit up...Can only say that you're too stupid to realize how it all works.

Market Size
Media Friendly Stars
Americans Not International Need to be primary.

2 of 3 is all that's needed.
Spurs don't have any of that.

Ive already won this argument.

Not even your fellow Spurs fans are agreeing with you.

[da_suns_fan]

Oh, btw Man In Black:

Your wikipedia quote doesnt claim Jordan helped the 95 finals. Your reading comprehension skills are beyond belief.

[da_suns_fan]

The 1993 Finals were Jordan's last before his first retirement. The Houston Rockets would take the next two titles consecutively. The ratings for those next two Finals decreased, but still had above-average views, and the 1995 Finals even came to within .3 ratings points of the 1992 Finals and featured Superstar Shaquille O'Neal making the finals with the Orlando Magic, which were swept 4-0 by the Rockets.

After the two seasons, Jordan returned. Subsequently, and almost instantly, ratings greatly increased. Jordan's first game back, a March 19, 1995 game between the Bulls and the Indiana Pacers, scored a 10.9 rating for NBC, the highest rated regular-season NBA game of all time. Ratings for the Finals (which the Bulls played in the following three years) went up sharply as well.

This Wikipedia quote says that the three finals post Jordan return had a sharp increase in ratings.

That doesnt mean the 95 finals had an increase in ratings because of Jordan.

You dont understand the links you post. Was English a second language for you?

[da_suns_fan]

I started a new thread on this topic in the general forum. Lets get other people's take since you think IM the one being weird.

[Man In Black]

Damn man...I almost feel sorry for you.
Why have a lead in that says Jordan came back March 19, 1995, say that it's the highest rated regular season rated game of all time(It's because he came back) and then say that the Finals rating went up?
It meant that THAT YEAR plus the 3 following years. IT MEANS THAT THE 95 FINALS HAD AN INCREASE BECAUSE JORDAN CAME BACK TO THE NBA.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you? You've lost this one...you're just too pig headed to accept the defeat.

[da_suns_fan]

Damn man...I almost feel sorry for you.
Why have a lead in that says Jordan came back March 19, 1995, say that it's the highest rated regular season rated game of all time(It's because he came back) and then say that the Finals rating went up?
It meant that THAT YEAR plus the 3 following years. IT MEANS THAT THE 95 FINALS HAD AN INCREASE BECAUSE JORDAN CAME BACK TO THE NBA.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you? You've lost this one...you're just too pig headed to accept the defeat.

If you think so, go the general board. I started a new thread for us there.

btw - thats not what it says.

[DMC]

You also have to consider what else there is to watch now, what other ways a person can keep up with the game without watching it on the specific channel, and TiVo..

[da_suns_fan]

You can't just block for Houston. That's like Mayweather Fan saying Floyd is part of the largest PPV fight ever and that he's solely responsible for the draw. The guy he fought was Oscar De la Hoya. Doesn't his presence mean anything? Yeah it does.

I just realized you dont understand what "block" means in this context.

I use the term freely as I have a masters in engineering, but obviously youre not familiar judging by the quote above.

Here's wikipedia's definition: In the statistical theory of the design of experiments, blocking is the arranging of experimental units in groups (blocks) that are similar to one another. Typically, a blocking factor is a source of variability that is not of primary interest to the experimenter. An example of a blocking factor might be the sex of a patient; by blocking on sex, this source of variability is controlled for, thus leading to greater accuracy.

You still might not get what this means.

If Orlando has played Phoenix (I wish) in 95, then we couldnt really compare Orlando vs New York. They would have played different opponents and we wouldnt be able to tell what ratings were for Orlando/New York and what ratings came from their opponent.

But since they both played Houston, their opponent is "blocked" and this source of variability is controlled.

That is, what ever ratings Houston brought in were probably very similar for 94 and 95.

[Horse]

It's not the Spurs fault it's this reality show mtv world. We don't have rappers and rapist(screw you neal didn't do it) or silly beards and loud mouth punk players that's why people are not interested.

[da_suns_fan]

It's not the Spurs fault it's this reality show mtv world. We don't have rappers and rapist(screw you neal didn't do it) or silly beards and loud mouth punk players that's why people are not interested.

zsMImODCIW0



-WuEJX3Ty9s

[Wild Cobra Kai]

louis, go away. Your shtick is old and tired.

[Man In Black]

But since they both played Houston, their opponent is "blocked" and this source of variability is controlled.

You can't really say that. It's a completely different season and there are external factors at play. Common opponent alone doesn't mean block like you say it is.

Why is it that the NBA can get an MIT to complete a study on Superstar Effect in the NBA to prove and quantify a dollar effect and ratings for both the superstar's team AND OTHERS, but still make you think that your theory supersedes that all?

It doesn't. Just because they have a common opponent doesn't block shit and no...the variability isn't controlled at all.

Jordan didn't play the entire 1993-1994 season at all. When he returned in March of 1995, his 1st game back....that game is the biggest ratings for a regular season game of all time. Of all time...now that's the constant.

Explain why this proof cannot be projected on the effect for the playoffs.
And yes, I can read. It's just that you want it to say exactly that his return propelled the playoffs and the Finals. It infers that, but you get hung up on the part that says the Bulls participated in the following three finals.

[Man In Black]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/sports/basketball/nba-finals-to-test-small-market-thunders-national-appeal.html



The San Antonio Spurs were ratings flops when they won the 2003, 2005 and 2007 N.B.A. titles. The Spurs were great, maybe dynastic. But they recorded the three lowest-rated N.B.A. finals since at least 1974 when they beat the Nets, the Pistons and the Cavaliers, the least-watched with an average of 9.3 million viewers over four games.

Blame the size of the Spurs’ market, the fourth smallest in the league. Blame the Spurs’ nearly mistake-free, unspectacular style and the middling attractiveness of their opponents. Or blame Tim Duncan’s refusal to cede his bank-shooting efficiency for Madison Avenue bankability.







If the best-of-seven series is competitive, and no team appears headed for a sweep, the Thunder may find the type of broad audience the Spurs could not. The Thunder, led by Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, play a dynamic, dunk-heavy offense that can attract casual sports fans.




“Durant has the ‘it’ factor,” said ABC’s Mike Breen, who will call the N.B.A. finals with Jeff Van Gundy. “He’s got charisma and he’s the humble superstar.” Still, he said: “I honestly never understood the lack of interest in San Antonio. Duncan wasn’t one of the flashiest, but one of the greatest.” And referring to Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, he said, “Manu and Tony were dynamic, exciting players to watch.”

[Man In Black]

What the Jordan Effect has meant for the NBA is a far trickier question, but fortunately we can call on some erudition here, in the persons of two respected economists, professor Jerry A. Hausman of MIT and Gregory K. Leonard, director of the consulting firm Cambridge Economics. Last year they reported the findings of an exhaustive study designed to determine the economic value of superstars to the league--including, of course, Jordan.

The research duo's econometric analysis, published in the Journal of Labor Economics, painstakingly charted and analyzed the league's television ratings and attendance records, controlling for such factors as the time and day of the telecasts, and the quality of the opponent. For their Jordan calculations, they obtained the reported gate receipts for every team and compared revenues generated when the Bulls came to town with the teams' average gate vs. other opponents. For licensed products, they used industry estimates that Jordan and the Bulls accounted for almost half of all gross retail sales, then separated the portion of sales attributed to Jordan and not the rest of the team by using a formula you have no desire to know (trust us). What did they learn?
Basically, that Jordan is the NBA's Pied Piper--he puts fannies in the seats and in front of the tube, and drags them into stores around the world. The study showed that Jordan generated $53.2 million for the league during the 1991-92 season.

[tesseractive]

But since they both played Houston, their opponent is "blocked" and this source of variability is controlled.

That is, what ever ratings Houston brought in were probably very similar for 94 and 95.

I don't care about the larger point you're trying to make, but to this specific point -- Houston had way more hype in '95 than in '94.

They were the defending champions and they had brought in Drexler (best SG not named Michael Jordan), but they had an utterly shitty regular season. It looked like they were going to have a similarly shitty postseason. They went down 2-1 in the 5-game first round against Utah, then won both elimination games to move on. In the second round, they went down 2-0 and 3-1 against Phoenix before battling back by winning 3 straight elimination games en route to a series win. Phoenix was a major name opponent because of Barkley and because they'd gone to the '93 Finals, and by the time that series was over, there was huge buzz about the Rockets.

Then they flattened David Robinson in the MVP series in the conference finals (:shootme), which increased the hype to deafening levels going into the NBA Finals vs. Shaq and Penny.

As a result of all this, Houston brought a vastly different following to the '95 finals than they had brought in '94.

[da_suns_fan]

I don't care about the larger point you're trying to make, but to this specific point -- Houston had way more hype in '95 than in '94.

They were the defending champions and they had brought in Drexler (best SG not named Michael Jordan), but they had an utterly shitty regular season. It looked like they were going to have a similarly shitty postseason. They went down 2-1 in the 5-game first round against Utah, then won both elimination games to move on. In the second round, they went down 2-0 and 3-1 against Phoenix before battling back by winning 3 straight elimination games en route to a series win. Phoenix was a major name opponent because of Barkley and because they'd gone to the '93 Finals, and by the time that series was over, there was huge buzz about the Rockets.



As much as it pains me to say it, Houston eliminated the Suns in 94 after losing the first two games at home. If they had any buzz in 95 from beating the Suns, then they had it in 94 as well.

[Kidd K]

wrong.

They're playing the Miami Heat, the most watched team in the last 2 years.

Spurs low rated Finals were against: New Jersey Nets (low rated team), Detroit Pistons (low rated team), and the Cleveland Cavs (low rated team). To make matters worse, the Nets and Pistons were making return trips to the Finals after the previous year, so there was less interest to see each team in the Finals. The Cavs on the other hand, were an underdog team that really didn't belong, and were heavily favored to get destroyed by the vastly superior Spurs team of 2007. . .with many experts predicting sweeps, or at best a 5 game series.

When the Spurs played the New York Knicks, their finals was literally the 4th highlest rated finals since Jordan retired, only 0.3, 0.8, and 0.2 behind three of four the Shaq/Kobe Lakers finals.

It's not just about SA, you have to put blame on their opponents as well. Had the Thunder played the Cavs, Pistons, or Nets, their ratings would clearly be lower.

Besides, it isn't like we didn't expect this Finals to get ratings. They're the "chosen teams" this year. The ones the NBA has been marketing harder than every other team in the league for the last 2 seasons.

[Venti Quattro]

To be fair, if the Thunder faced Boston, we'd be watching a snooze-fest.

[tesseractive]

As much as it pains me to say it, Houston eliminated the Suns in 94 after losing the first two games at home. If they had any buzz in 95 from beating the Suns, then they had it in 94 as well.

But in '95 they were doing it after starting the season with super-high expectations (after winning the title and landing Drexler), after which they faced a whole season of "What's Wrong with the Rockets?" stories. Then the Suns series was a rematch of a classic, and they dug themselves a huge 3-1 hole before recovering to win it.

In '94 it was a classic series. In '95 it was built on top of the intersection of multiple major NBA storylines (rematch!, can Chuck finally get over the hump?, struggling defending champs, can the Rockets recover from their regular season problems?, can they come back in the clutch again?, can they be the first team since '81 to come back from a 3-1 deficit?), and as a result, it drew far more attention the second time around.

[PublicOption]

you fuckers stole the sonics. that team will never be yours. thieves.

41 years in Seattle and in 3 years you think that team is yours.....fuck off.

...and the only reason that stern let you guys in so fast was try an erase the memory.....but it ain't gonna happen.


You would think a town that had 168 people killed by a tragic event would know what its like to have its heart ripped out.

YOU SUCK.

[tesseractive]

you fuckers stole the sonics. that team will never be yours. thieves.

41 years in Seattle and in 3 years you think that team is yours.....fuck off.

...and the only reason that stern let you guys in so fast was try an erase the memory.....but it ain't gonna happen.


You would think a town that had 168 people killed by a tragic event would know what its like to have its heart ripped out.

YOU SUCK.
You think losing a fucking basketball team is remotely comparable to a terrorist bombing?

Fuck you. You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

[Man In Black]

But in '95 they were doing it after starting the season with super-high expectations (after winning the title and landing Drexler), after which they faced a whole season of "What's Wrong with the Rockets?" stories. Then the Suns series was a rematch of a classic, and they dug themselves a huge 3-1 hole before recovering to win it.

In '94 it was a classic series. In '95 it was built on top of the intersection of multiple major NBA storylines (rematch!, can Chuck finally get over the hump?, struggling defending champs, can the Rockets recover from their regular season problems?, can they come back in the clutch again?, can they be the first team since '81 to come back from a 3-1 deficit?), and as a result, it drew far more attention the second time around.

Plus everybody started singing Like Mike, if I can be like Mike again...because Mike came back.b0AGiq9j_Ak

[Spurtacus]

I do not consider OKC a small market team. They appeal to the entire midwest. For Spurs its tough to crack all of Texas with Dallas and Houston around.

But the NBA Finals ratings doesn't surprise me. This is why Stern and his goons helped the Thunder beat the Spurs.

[Spurtacus]

I do not consider OKC a small market team. They appeal to the entire midwest. For Spurs its tough to crack all of Texas with Dallas and Houston around.

But the NBA Finals ratings doesn't surprise me. This is why Stern and his goons helped the Thunder beat the Spurs.

[rascal]

It's not the Spurs fault it's this reality show mtv world. We don't have rappers and rapist(screw you neal didn't do it) or silly beards and loud mouth punk players that's why people are not interested.

Not true. The Spurs have played non attractive basketball during the Pop years. seldom did they have the athletes that could run a fast break, instead stressing low scoring and defense.

Even today they don't run much but have superior passing and ball movement and great perimeter shooters from 3. That type of play doesn't hold up in the playoffs.

[Sean Cagney]

Not true. The Spurs have played non attractive basketball during the Pop years. seldom did they have the athletes that could run a fast break, instead stressing low scoring and defense.

Even today they don't run much but have superior passing and ball movement and great perimeter shooters from 3. That type of play doesn't hold up in the playoffs.

True, but it did get them far this year and a 2-0 lead in the WCF, it was almost enough! I miss the D and stops though and execution down the stretch which they had before, that is gone it seems.

[703 Spurz]

ABC record rating for game 1:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/nba-finals-game-1-tv-ratings-set-record-223528351--nba.html

Interesting excerpt:



They forgot to mention Spurs/Cleveland which was the record low (beating out Spurs/Nets and Spurs/Pistons) but no matter. In one game OKC proved that in this day of global media, local market sizes have nothing to do with national interest.

Not sure what the point of this thread is. People thought the Spurs were boring in their trophy quests. Why would anyone not a fucking degenerate pussy care?

[Budkin]

I don't think this has anything to do with market size, it's all about players. Kevin Durant is insanely popular nationwide. Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker are not.

[phyzik]

Just let the Suns fan have his perceived victory on this message board already.... Phonics Nones! Ratings champs!

Hang a banner and let it go already.

[Buddy Holly]

I guess game 3 doing worse than game three of last years finals is why the pathetic and bitter Suns fan has been quiet.

[Kidd K]

Why is anyone even still replying to this?

These are the only needed facts:


Spurs got high ratings in 1999 against the Knicks. 4th highest out of 14 seasons since Jordan retired in 1998. The Knicks were a popular team, and it was the Spurs' first Finals appearance ever. The ratings were expectedly high as there was high interest in both teams.


SA opponents in 2003, 2005, and 2007:

2003: Nets, a low rated team who was already in the Finals the previous year. vs Spurs, a "boring" team who's been good forever and just knocked off the star-powered bandwagon team of the last 4 seasons in the Lakers. Not a good combination for ratings.

2005: Pistons, another low rated team who was already in the Finals the previous year and even won it. So you have two low rated teams who won the last 2 titles in the Finals while knocking off the NBA's bandwagon darling Lakers. The ratings couldn't have been good.

2007: vs Cavs, a low rated team whom everyone expected to get swept or at best win a single game.


Meanwhile,

OKC opponent this year: the very highly rated Miami Heat where LeBron is going for his first ring. The ratings are high, unsurprisingly. They would've been high against the Spurs as well. Especially if the Spurs ended up winning in 5-6 games like they would have if the officiating wasn't bogus as shit in the WCF. People would've tuned in to pray the Spurs prevented LeBron and Wade from winning.


So somehow the ratings means what again? The Spurs had an even higher rated first Finals. If OKC manages to stay together (I doubt it), their ratings are going to drop the more they're successful. Especially if they keep getting Sterned into the Finals.