If you remember the mid-90s NBA, please answer this question.

[da_suns_fan]

Please settle this for me and "ManInBlack":

Why do you believe the 1995 finals (ORL/HOU) had more viewers than the 1994 finals (NY/HOU).

Why did more people tune in to watch this series?

No prejudices. Just looking for your take.

[Monostradamus]

because the double decker taco just wouldn't cut it, we had to witness the ultimate battle of crunchy vs. soft.

[Edward]

It honestly surprises me that the 95 finals had higher ratings than the 94 finals. Not because of market size but because the 94 finals was a 7 game series not a sweep like the 95 finals.

[Edward]

because the double decker taco just wouldn't cut it, we had to witness the ultimate battle of crunchy vs. soft.
Did you have to drive 900 miles to witness the ultimate battle?

[JoeTait75]

Shaq and Penny were huge and Orlando was seen as the next great NBA team, whereas the Knicks had absolutely no viewer appeal despite being located in the nation's biggest media market.

So to boil it down: Magic > Knicks in terms of ratings.

[da_suns_fan]

because the double decker taco just wouldn't cut it, we had to witness the ultimate battle of crunchy vs. soft.

So you credit it to the Shaq/Olajuwon rivalry?

[da_suns_fan]

Shaq and Penny were huge and Orlando was seen as the next great NBA team, whereas the Knicks had absolutely no viewer appeal despite being located in the nation's biggest media market.

So to boil it down: Magic > Knicks in terms of ratings.

Well said.

[JoeTait75]

Well said.

To be fair, I'm biased. I hated those Knicks teams.

[Man In Black]

This is much too informal.

If this was a court of law, there would be instruction on how a jury would need to see the evidence.

Why is it...you don't provide one?
If you don't give anyone a point of reference, then you're relying on a hazy memory from events that happened 18 & 17 years ago respectively.

Give them facts...perhaps we should even give them choices.

Be factual...not circumstantial.

Make it a Court in Session and let's see how this plays out.

[da_suns_fan]

To be fair, I'm biased. I hated those Knicks teams.

As did most people.

[da_suns_fan]

Man in Black attributes the rise in ratings to Michael Jordan.

He believes Jordan's "Mini comeback" brought back casual viewers.

I personally believe that any casual viewers that Jordan might have brought back probably stopped watching when the Bulls got eliminated in the second round.

[JoeTait75]

The fact that Houston was a known commodity and going for a repeat in '95 might have had something to do with it as well.

[lefty]

Why did you hate the Knicks ????


I thought they nicely swept the Cavs in 95

[Monostradamus]

I can see maybe in a small way how Jordan would affect the ratings, since maybe the casual Jordan fan stuck around even after he got eliminated once they got a taste of Shaq and Penny. But any ratings bump due to that would be minimal. To think Jordan really affected ratings in a series he didn't play in is pretty dumb.

[da_suns_fan]

I can see maybe in a small way how Jordan would affect the ratings, since maybe the casual Jordan fan stuck around even after he got eliminated once they got a taste of Shaq and Penny. But any ratings bump due to that would be minimal. To think Jordan really affected ratings in a series he didn't play in is pretty dumb.

Well said.

[Edward]

The fact that Houston was a known commodity and going for a repeat in '95 might have had something to do with it as well.
True. Drexler also might have given that Houston team more appeal than the 94 team.

[JoeTait75]

Why did you hate the Knicks ????


I thought they nicely swept the Cavs in 95

The playoff losses didn't bother me because I know the Price-Daugherty-Nance teams in their prime would have handled the Knicks in any series. Check the records, those Cavs teams always beat New York.

I just thought the Knicks practically ruined the game with their style of play. If I want to see fights I'll watch hockey.

To me the Knicks-Heat games of the late '90s were the absolute nadir of the sport. Just awful basketball.

[Edward]

You also still hear announcers (Van Gundy specifically) talk about how even though he spent his entire career in NY, Patrick Ewing was one of the most unmarketable superstars in the NBA.

[tesseractive]

Man in Black attributes the rise in ratings to Michael Jordan.

He believes Jordan's "Mini comeback" brought back casual viewers.

I personally believe that any casual viewers that Jordan might have brought back probably stopped watching when the Bulls got eliminated in the second round.

There was a ton of hype that year for the NBA playoffs -- the Jordan comeback, the defending champion Rockets playing possum then coming back to win tough series against Utah and Phoenix, the Olajuwon MVP game, the rise of Shaq and the Magic in the east.

The Jordan comeback certainly wasn't the only big story, but I think it definitely contributed to the overall buzz that year.

[da_suns_fan]

To recap in even further, my initial point was that the Magic/Rockets got a better rating than the Knicks/Rockets, which shows that small market teams can still be incredibly popular (considering New York is ten times the size of Orlando).

ManInBlack thought this was an unfair comparison considering Jordan was "back" in 95 and not in 94.

[DMC]

Simple: Casual fans bandwagon after the 1st win and those who bought the merchandise watched the 2nd season Finals because they are "die hard fans".

Also, Shaq had a shit load of press around him, he was a monster when he entered the league. Many people don't recall how dominant Penny Hardaway was.

Now the real question: Which Suns' championship seasons was the most dominant?

[da_suns_fan]

Simple: Casual fans bandwagon after the 1st win and those who bought the merchandise watched the 2nd season Finals because they are "die hard fans".

Also, Shaq had a shit load of press around him, he was a monster when he entered the league. Many people don't recall how dominant Penny Hardaway was.

Now the real question: Which Suns' championship seasons was the most dominant?

Except for the jab at the Suns, I agree with everything you just said. :lol

[Kai]

Jordan returning helped the sport a great deal, even if his team was eliminated. Also, dat Clutch city fever. We were big time being the defending champs, as opposed to a 6th seed that fluked their way in. Shaq was a huge draw as well.

[JMarkJohns]

People hated Riley for his brand of thug ball. Ratings tanked even worse with Miami. Save for Ewing that New York team had nothing to market. Plus, there was a ton going on during the 94 series, including the Rangers winning the cup, which may have stolen some of the NY market, and in game 7, the OJ Simpson chase, which was airing on like every channel and was my generations "where were you when..." moment.

Factor all this in with the Magic being an exciting up-n-coming team led by Shaq and the fact that the Rockets had Hakeem at his absolute devastating prime in 94-95 going for the repeat, and I think a lot wanted to see that matchup.

[baseline bum]

No OJ chase in 1995.

[Man In Black]

Jordan returning helped the sport a great deal, even if his team was eliminated. Also, dat Clutch city fever. We were big time being the defending champs, as opposed to a 6th seed that fluked their way in. Shaq was a huge draw as well.
Opposing views differ..I'm glad that you see it the way that I do.

To say Jordan's effect would be minimal would be a slap in the face of the way that the NBA promotes their star-driven league.

Unlike the NFL which does an amazing job of promoting Team, outside of QBs, most any player can be replaced and TEAM wins out in the hearts and minds of NFL fans. Since the NBA is star-driven and Jordan was at the time, it's biggest and brightest star...EVER, him being in the playoffs resulted in an uptick due to casual fan who wanted to not only be like Mike, they were happy to be able to watch him again.

Tons of articles talk about the Jordan Effect:

"When Michael leaves, it certainly will affect the ratings numbers. If I said there will be no difference, you'd call me a liar," says Mike Pearl, Turner Sports vice president and executive producer. "It may take a while to replace those numbers."



NEW YORK {AP} Michael Jordan took the NBA Finals television ratings to a new high, but in the first season without him, the ratings fell to their lowest levels in 18 years.

NBC's five-game series average between the San Antonio Spurs and New York Knicks posted a 11.3 national rating and a 21 share, down 40 percent from last year's final series.

The 1998 NBA Finals between Jordan's Chicago Bulls and the Utah Jazz went six games and had a 18.7 rating the highest in league history.

The last time the NBA Finals finished with a lower rating than this season was in 1981. However, none of the six games that season between the Boston Celtics and Houston Rockets were aired in prime-time by CBS.

"We knew going in that the casual fan would be a much tougher draw without the best known man in the world," said NBC spokesman Ed Markey. "We knew it would be an uphill climb."

[DMC]

People hated Riley for his brand of thug ball. Ratings tanked even worse with Miami. Save for Ewing that New York team had nothing to market. Plus, there was a ton going on during the 94 series, including the Rangers winning the cup, which may have stolen some of the NY market, and in game 7, the OJ Simpson chase, which was airing on like every channel and was my generations "where were you when..." moment.

Factor all this in with the Magic being an exciting up-n-coming team led by Shaq and the fact that the Rockets had Hakeem at his absolute devastating prime in 94-95 going for the repeat, and I think a lot wanted to see that matchup.
NY was boring because Ewing was so fucking ugly. Other than Shaq, teams with dominant centers and mediocre guards were boring teams. People with dominant guards and average centers were more exciting, because post play isn't exciting unless it's Shaq pulling down the backboard, and even then the Kobe/Shaq rivalry fueled much of the excitement.

Boring isn't about market size, it's about style of play. Teams gamble when they choose up tempo "exciting" ball over solid defense and inside out ball. One will get you viewers and the other will get you rings. Rings bring bandwagon fans and they buy a shit load of merchandise. Getting a ring is costly and a risky adventure. Playing up tempo ball can be done on command and with the right people, you can do well in the regular season and sometimes do OK in the playoffs as well until you get into the latter stages where defense is required. That's a safer bet for many teams than hoping they can grind out a ring with half court offense and suffocating defense.

It's also about cities with allure, however there's nothing alluring about San Antonio itself. The city has the Alamo, and everything else has sucked off that teat forever.

Then you have the front runners that only know big names like Kobe, Lebron and Jordan. They might have heard of Tim Duncan if they follow sports, but otherwise they probably cannot name anyone on the Spurs roster.

I would be willing to bet more Americans can identify Lamar Odom than Pau Gasol.

The overwhelmingly large majority of viewers of championship games never watch regular season games. Many of these people are at bars, other people's homes or they just catch the game because they feel it has some finality to it (like hockey, whatever that is).

[Kai]

Kobe Bryant sells millions and millions of jerseys in China. No one in China would give a shit about Kobe if Yao Ming never played in the NBA. Yao brought fans to the NBA that would have otherwise not cared.

Jordan made the nation buzz again, made the games feel more authentic. It's not foolish to think that if you watched the playoffs up until the Magic eliminated the Bulls, you might have a vested interest in seeing how it all ends. The more I think about it, the more retarded it is to say that Jordan didn't have an effect on the 95 finals ratings.

[da_suns_fan]

Opposing views differ..I'm glad that you see it the way that I do.

To say Jordan's effect would be minimal would be a slap in the face of the way that the NBA promotes their star-driven league.

Unlike the NFL which does an amazing job of promoting Team, outside of QBs, most any player can be replaced and TEAM wins out in the hearts and minds of NFL fans. Since the NBA is star-driven and Jordan was at the time, it's biggest and brightest star...EVER, him being in the playoffs resulted in an uptick due to casual fan who wanted to not only be like Mike, they were happy to be able to watch him again.

Tons of articles talk about the Jordan Effect:

You just keep posting articles that say Jordan produced ratings in games he played.

EVEN IF he generated more "buzz" around the league and increased ratings over all, theres no proof that he was able to increase ratings for Magic/Houston simply by playing for half a season.

As many others have pointed out in this thread, the story of that series was much more compelling than the year before, mostly because of Shaq/Penny.

And my original point was that exciting teams such as the 95 magic arent held back by small markets. They pulled a higher rating than New York the year before. You bizarrely attribute this to the Jordan's return from baseball for half a season.

[Kai]

You just keep posting articles that say Jordan produced ratings in games he played.

EVEN IF he generated more "buzz" around the league and increased ratings over all, theres no proof that he was able to increase ratings for Magic/Houston simply by playing for half a season.

As many others have pointed out in this thread, the story of that series was much more compelling than the year before, mostly because of Shaq/Penny.

And my original point was that exciting teams such as the 95 magic arent held back by small markets. They pulled a higher rating than New York the year before. You bizarrely attribute this to the Jordan's return from baseball for half a season.
Does it really have to be one way or the other? Both of your points contributed to the increased ratings, I would say.

[da_suns_fan]

Also, if a Jordan "return" will increase ratings in the finals, regardless if hes playing, then why did the finals rating go DOWN in 2002 (when Jordan returned a second time with the Washington Wizards).


Does this "Jordan Effect" not "count"?

[DMC]

You just keep posting articles that say Jordan produced ratings in games he played.

EVEN IF he generated more "buzz" around the league and increased ratings over all, theres no proof that he was able to increase ratings for Magic/Houston simply by playing for half a season.

As many others have pointed out in this thread, the story of that series was much more compelling than the year before, mostly because of Shaq/Penny.

And my original point was that exciting teams such as the 95 magic arent held back by small markets. They pulled a higher rating than New York the year before. You bizarrely attribute this to the Jordan's return from baseball for half a season.

So if Tiger played for half a season and the ratings increased over the previous year (in which Tiger did not play) for some majors he didn't play in, would you not say Tiger had a role in that?

[DMC]

Also, if a Jordan "return" will increase ratings in the finals, regardless if hes playing, then why did the finals rating go DOWN in 2002 (when Jordan returned a second time with the Washington Wizards).


Does this "Jordan Effect" not "count"?
Jordan was done then, everyone knew it. It's not just about Jordan, but what Jordan was when he was. Otherwise, bring him back now, right?

[da_suns_fan]

Does it really have to be one way or the other? Both of your points contributed to the increased ratings, I would say.

I think my original point that the Magic were a big draw despite their small market size is valid.

I think their rating against Houston in the finals being larger than New York's rating against Houston is statistical proof.

ManInBlack believes you cannot compare the two because 95 had Jordan.

[Kai]

Also, if a Jordan "return" will increase ratings in the finals, regardless if hes playing, then why did the finals rating go DOWN in 2002 (when Jordan returned a second time with the Washington Wizards).


Does this "Jordan Effect" not "count"?

Is this sarcasm? Are you seriously comparing the two situations? C'mon man.

[Dunc n Dave]

In 94' the Rockets wer Hakeem and a bunch of role players vs a defense first Knicks team playing games in the low 70s to low 80's scores.

In '95 the addition of Drexler's 25-30pts in the playoffs to a team looking to repeat made the Rockets more marketable (two star system like Jordan and Pippen) and like previously stated, the Magic were the new "it" team with Shaq and Penny (remember all the Lil' Penny commercials?). Both teams were better offensively that the 94' Finals teams.

It was more about having multiple stars than teams being in a small market.

[DMC]

I think my original point that the Magic were a big draw despite their small market size is valid.

I think their rating against Houston in the finals being larger than New York's rating against Houston is statistical proof.

ManInBlack believes you cannot compare the two because 95 had Jordan.
You seem to have built a strawman and are trying to get credit for attacking it.

Who here said the Spurs have low ratings because they are a small market team?

[da_suns_fan]

So if Tiger played for half a season and the ratings increased over the previous year (in which Tiger did not play) for some majors he didn't play in, would you not say Tiger had a role in that?

Sure.

I would say that interest in the sport would die if tiger left and would back if he came back.

But that doesnt mean that Orlando wasnt more popular than the Knicks, despite their small market size, in 1995. Tiger IS golf whereas the NBA already had a plethera of established superstars by the mid-90s.

You said yourself:
Also, Shaq had a shit load of press around him, he was a monster when he entered the league. Many people don't recall how dominant Penny Hardaway was.

[da_suns_fan]

You seem to have built a strawman and are trying to get credit for attacking it.

Who here said the Spurs have low ratings because they are a small market team?

Youre kidding, right?

[da_suns_fan]

In 94' the Rockets wer Hakeem and a bunch of role players vs a defense first Knicks team playing games in the low 70s to low 80's scores.

In '95 the addition of Drexler's 25-30pts in the playoffs to a team looking to repeat made the Rockets more marketable (two star system like Jordan and Pippen) and like previously stated, the Magic were the new "it" team with Shaq and Penny (remember all the Lil' Penny commercials?). Both teams were better offensively that the 94' Finals teams.

It was more about having multiple stars than teams being in a small market.

Well said.

[Kai]

I think we all know why people watched:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J2OJ9YJ1yFc/0.jpg

Edit: damn, thought I was the first to bring up lil penny :depressed

[da_suns_fan]

I think we all know why people watched:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J2OJ9YJ1yFc/0.jpg

Edit: damn, thought I was the first to bring up lil penny :depressed

I agree completely.

[DMC]

Youre kidding, right?
No, show the quote.

[da_suns_fan]

No, show the quote.
Heres a good thread from last month:

http://eva.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196236

[Man In Black]

Sure.

I would say that interest in the sport would die if tiger left and would back if he came back.

But that doesnt mean that Orlando wasnt more popular than the Knicks, despite their small market size, in 1995. Tiger IS golf whereas the NBA already had a plethera of established superstars by the mid-90s.

You said yourself:

Yet not one of the plethora of stars had the effect of Michael Jordan. For simply the casual fan....Michael Jordan is to basketball as Tiger is to Golf.

It's not a stretch at all to think that. That's why all of these articles pretty much say this point:
MJ in the NBA as a player at that time moved both eyes and cash to an extent that no one other, either by themselves or as a collection of stars, could duplicate much less approach.

That is what the article says. Why you can't even allow for the possibility is mind-boggling.

[DMC]

Heres a good thread from last month:

http://eva.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196236

So I guess you want me to pick a quote from that thread started by a gnsf with 55 posts.

Duncan is unassuming.
No controversy.
Small market.
Too consistent, no highs or lows.
Best players aren't from America.

What part of that is wrong? Who says it's only because of being in a small market?

Strawmen don't make good opponents.

Also, what does that thread have to do with ratings? It was about being hated, and here's my quote from that thread:


Other teams' fans who actually hate the Spurs do so because they see them as being hypocrites, sitting on a high moral ground as if their shit doesn't stink, playing good ball, sure, but playing uninspiring (by their standards) ball and just doing the same boring shit over and over. They hated the hack-a-shaq, think Pop is a coward and that the Spurs were helped by Donaghy. They think the Spurs tanked for Duncan and to a point, Robinson. So they don't think the word "class" should apply to the Spurs any more than it should apply to any other team.

Mostly though, they see the same talk about this team every year, same few players who stuck together and is the oldest core group in the league. People felt the same way about Jazz when they had Malone and Stockton, and I distinctly recall people hating the fuck out of the Celtics for their boring, layup drill style of play.

Basketball purists will love those teams, but those who think every "play of the day" should be a dunk, don't recognize the pass, the screen or other less flamboyant plays, those who constitute the largest percentage of NBA gear purchases and who are the reason why Kobe, Lebron and Jeremy fucking Lin's jerseys outsell all others, they are the ones who hate the Spurs, just because.

[DMC]

Yet not one of the plethora of stars had the effect of Michael Jordan. For simply the casual fan....Michael Jordan is to basketball as Tiger is to Golf.

It's not a stretch at all to think that. That's why all of these articles pretty much say this point:
MJ in the NBA as a player at that time moved both eyes and cash to an extent that no one other, either by themselves or as a collection of stars, could duplicate much less approach.

That is what the article says. Why you can't even allow for the possibility is mind-boggling.
Jordan's effect on the NBA is still being seen today.

[Man In Black]

It's my theory that the Spurs get dinged in ratings for 3 critical factors:

Small Market San Antonio

Pop Intentionally makes sure that his guys don't do much for the media other than what's required. There will be no serious time commitment to any Spur building his own brand other than, again, what's required. There will be no Lil' Tony or Poquuito Manu characters or none of that.

Finally, All of their stars, Including Tim who played for the US, are considered International Players. The American Media would prefer to back American Born Players who learned the game here, played at high level in High School, and then College.

If one compares OKC to SAS:
The only commonality they have is Small Market.

The Thunder has made their guys media-accessible and friendly. Kevin Durant has multiple National TV Commercial appearances. Doodle-Jump ring a bell?
Spurs don't do those and even the one Big Commercial, that commercial was released not early in the playoffs but late when it was finally revealed that the team was going on a deep run.

The Principal Stars for OKC are all American Born. Solid HS Players, then Solid College Players who play an appealing brand of hoops. Having said that, James Harden has based a large part of his game on what he has culled from Manu Ginobili. The thing that's fucked up is that if James did exactly the same thing that Manu did but in a different game, say it was a crazy split the double moving left that leads to a dunk over a big, James would get Top Play of the Day by the 4-Letter and Manu would either get a low top 10 or not show up at all. That's the power of Nationalism at work and why the Spurs get selectively muted by the powers that are supposed to promote them.

That's reality but lucky for Spurs Fans...That doesn't stop the team from competing at a high level and winning titles.

[da_suns_fan]

Yet not one of the plethora of stars had the effect of Michael Jordan. For simply the casual fan....Michael Jordan is to basketball as Tiger is to Golf.

It's not a stretch at all to think that. That's why all of these articles pretty much say this point:
MJ in the NBA as a player at that time moved both eyes and cash to an extent that no one other, either by themselves or as a collection of stars, could duplicate much less approach.

That is what the article says. Why you can't even allow for the possibility is mind-boggling.

I believe beating the Bulls added to the Magic's buzz the same way beating the Lakers added to the Thunder's Buzz.

Would there have been less buzz for the Magic had Jordan not played in the playoffs? Probably.

Would the rating for Magic/Houston STILL have been higher than New York/Houston? Probably.

The Magic were that popular, despite the small market size.

[da_suns_fan]

Who here said the Spurs have low ratings because they are a small market team?


It's my theory that the Spurs get dinged in ratings for 3 critical factors:

Small Market San Antonio
.

:lol:lol:lol

DMC: You wanted a quote. There it is, bro. Theres ten years of this stuff on this site.

[DMC]

......and

When you see a commercial by the NBA showing all the teams playing, doing things, passing the ball to each other, even the big head on the stage playing as a band thing, the Spurs are almost conspicuously absent other than one of them being in the very back. During Spurs games, they are absent from the BVNA NBA commercials. The team that has the best winning record in professional sports in the past 10 years gets no play.

Like politics, no air time means no votes/viewers aka no outside interest.

Cause and effect probably, but there it is.

[da_suns_fan]

Pop Intentionally makes sure that his guys don't do much for the media other than what's required. There will be no serious time commitment to any Spur building his own brand other than, again, what's required. There will be no Lil' Tony or Poquuito Manu characters or none of that.


http://hoopshype.com/commercials.htm

Manu Ginobili is number five in "number of commercials".

Tim Duncan is number eight.

Tony Parker is 14.

WHat the hell is "HEB"?

[DMC]

:lol:lol:lol

DMC: You wanted a quote. There it is, bro. Theres ten years of this stuff on this site.

Ex post facto bro :lol

You need to show me why you started down this path, as if it's a standing paradigm that the Spurs have low ratings because they are in a small market.

You are basically begging the question.

Also, just because you can show an instance where it appears that the small market aspect was overcome, that doesn't negate the fact that small markets have less exposure.

SA has a shit ton less exposure.

You have work to do unless you're just here to troll, in which case troll on.

[da_suns_fan]

Finally, All of their stars, Including Tim who played for the US, are considered International Players. The American Media would prefer to back American Born Players who learned the game here, played at high level in High School, and then College.


What a load of horse-shit.

Tim Duncan played at Wake Forest. Played for Team USA. Youre telling me "the media" doesnt like him because he's "international"?

Garbage.

[da_suns_fan]

Also, just because you can show an instance where it appears that the small market aspect was overcome, that doesn't negate the fact that small markets have less exposure.


What do you mean "An" instance?

How bout OKC (small Market) vs. Heat doing better than Dallas (large market) vs. Heat?

How bout Utah (small market) vs Bulls doing better than Phoenix (large market), Los Angeles (huge market), Seattle (medium/large market)?

In today's day and age, teams are not "held" back by small markets.

QUESTION: How many times has the Thunder been on national TV this year?

Answer: A shit load.

Would they be even BIGGER if they played in New York? Absolutely. But no one has dared brand them boring where as YOU claim a couple posts up that the Spurs are boring becase A) They play in a small market.

[DMC]

What do you mean "An" instance?

How bout OKC (small Market) vs. Heat doing better than Dallas (large market) vs. Heat?

How bout Utah (small market) vs Bulls doing better than Phoenix (large market), Los Angeles (huge market), Seattle (medium/large market)?

In today's day and age, teams are not "held" back by small markets.

QUESTION: How many times has the Thunder been on national TV this year?

Answer: A shit load.

Would they be even BIGGER if they played in New York? Absolutely. But no one has dared brand them boring where as YOU claim a couple posts up that the Spurs are boring becase A) They play in a small market.
I didn't say the Spurs are boring because they play in a small market.

Instead of paraphrasing, quote me. I mean, if it's right there.

[DMC]

http://hoopshype.com/commercials.htm

Manu Ginobili is number five in "number of commercials".

Tim Duncan is number eight.

Tony Parker is 14.

WHat the hell is "HEB"?

:lmao

Local supermarket

:lmao shown only on Fox Sports SW

:lmao next to Wayne Wright law firm commercials

:lmaocomparing that to national exposure by Nike, Kia and others.

:lmao:lmao Shitting on your own argument

[da_suns_fan]

I didn't say the Spurs are boring because they play in a small market.

Instead of paraphrasing, quote me. I mean, if it's right there.


My mistake.

I confused your quote for ManInBlack.

[DMC]

My mistake.

I confused your quote for ManInBlack.
So you were saying?

[da_suns_fan]

:lmao

Local supermarket

:lmao shown only on Fox Sports SW

:lmao next to Wayne Wright law firm commercials

:lmaocomparing that to national exposure by Nike, Kia and others.

:lmao:lmao Shitting on your own argument

Kevin Durant is number one.

Most appearances: Nike.

[da_suns_fan]

So you were saying?

Theres more than one instance of teams "overcoming" their small market :toast

[DMC]

Kevin Durant is number one.

Most appearances: Nike.
Exactly. That's the point I have been trying to make. Exposure on a national level. Spurs don't get that. If they were in a large market, someone on that team would get national media exposure just because. Lamar Odom had a reality show. That kind of thing.

[da_suns_fan]

Exactly. That's the point I have been trying to make. Exposure on a national level. Spurs don't get that. If they were in a large market, someone on that team would get national media exposure just because. Lamar Odom had a reality show. That kind of thing.

Yet Kevin Durant is number ONE despite being in the second smallest NBA market.

And its not a local supermarket. We're talking NIKE here.

[da_suns_fan]

im done for today..pick up tomorrow.

[DMC]

Theres more than one instance of teams "overcoming" their small market :toast

For ratings or for rings?

The reasons I posted


Other teams' fans who actually hate the Spurs do so because they see them as being hypocrites, sitting on a high moral ground as if their shit doesn't stink, playing good ball, sure, but playing uninspiring (by their standards) ball and just doing the same boring shit over and over. They hated the hack-a-shaq, think Pop is a coward and that the Spurs were helped by Donaghy. They think the Spurs tanked for Duncan and to a point, Robinson. So they don't think the word "class" should apply to the Spurs any more than it should apply to any other team.

Mostly though, they see the same talk about this team every year, same few players who stuck together and is the oldest core group in the league. People felt the same way about Jazz when they had Malone and Stockton, and I distinctly recall people hating the fuck out of the Celtics for their boring, layup drill style of play.

Basketball purists will love those teams, but those who think every "play of the day" should be a dunk, don't recognize the pass, the screen or other less flamboyant plays, those who constitute the largest percentage of NBA gear purchases and who are the reason why Kobe, Lebron and Jeremy fucking Lin's jerseys outsell all others, they are the ones who hate the Spurs, just because.

are the reasons I feel other teams' fans hate the Spurs.

That doesn't mean they won't watch them.

The Spurs are in charge of their own public image, and they choose to remain off the grid in terms of tabloids, and though purists gush about the greatness of their team play, ratings are driven by the casual fan, and casual fan likes media hype. SA has no media hype, some of that is their doing, other is media covering their interests. It's a snowball effect, becomes chicken or the egg thing.

[DMC]

Yet Kevin Durant is number ONE despite being in the second smallest NBA market.

And its not a local supermarket. We're talking NIKE here.

Tim turns down offers all the time for commercials, as does Dirk and other NBA stars.

That's by choice. They prefer private lives.

[Kidd K]

Jordan came back in '95 and the Magic beat the Bulls. So people were more interested in the NBA due to Jordan's reappearance.

Anybody dumb enough to kid themselves into thinking Jordan didn't = ratings just needs to peep the NBA Finals Ratings history. Ratings dropped when Jordan retired. They increased again when Jordan reappeared in 95, and stayed very high in 96-98 when he got there, then dropped off the face of the earth after he retired in 98.

Shaq vs Hakeem was also marketed a lot more.

[DMC]

If you look at the low markers for the time periods of 1999 thru now for ratings, you will see the Spurs games always dipped relative to their respective 3 year windows.

They never had good ratings. Some is easy to understand given the lockout, but others are just based on people not caring what a North Mexico team does.

[Gino]

Shaq and Penny in the finals.

[Killakobe81]

I do think Jordan helped spur interest in the game itself. Sure, they were eliminated but teh media frenzy on his return especially after the double nickel on the Knicks helped fuel a strong ratings and merchandise year for the NBA. Forbes or Money did a study on Mj's impact in his return and the numbers were crazy, so your friend could be right.

On the 94 side you had post MJ apathy, the OJ chase (pretty much pre-empted a freaking Finals game) AND a ugly brawling style of ball played by the Knicks that gave little reason to watch.

[Man In Black]

Tim Duncan played at Wake Forest. Played for Team USA. Youre telling me "the media" doesnt like him because he's "international"?

Garbage.

Understand, it's not that the media doesn't like him. It's more that he doesn't like them and rarely grants them an audience on anything.

Hence, because he chooses to, he has limited marketability and because of that, the media won't do anything more than a short synopsis which amounts to calling him the Big Fundamental. They don't play it up, they don't paint an image of anything that one could market up. You have articles that call Tim and his team Spectacularly Consistent. That doesn't give casual fan or the media a reason to either like him or the team or play him or the team UP. What the casuals and the media want is Consistently Spectacular. Do you get that? They love Hero Ball as opposed to Team Ball. Hero Ball isn't Tim and it's not the Spurs as constructed by Pop.


Besides, the International factor plays more directly for Parker and Ginobili...or are you going to call that garbage too? Even though Parker says it, that being Internationals meant that they got treated differently.

Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean yours is unchallengeable. Quite the contrary...it's easily challenged.

The NBA has their rules and they label anyone not born in the any of the 50 US states or in DC, to be International. Don't call me out just because the NBA made that an official ruling. In the NBA's eyes, and what should be in yours too...Tim is officially International. But again...he intentionally chooses to not be media- friendly.

http://a.espncdn.com/oly/columns/stein_marc/1594477.html
As for playing for Team USA. He didn't have a choice. In 1994, Duncan participated for the Senior Mens USA team. Once you do that, you cannot go back. In 2003, during the Tournament of the Americas, Tim chose to not play any games any games at all against the USVI team. If he had a choice, he might have played for USVI and that would give us more basis for International. Raja Bell is an International. Same Deal as Tim, except Raja first played for the USVI Senior Team. He is still listed on their current roster as well.

[LkrFan]

Please settle this for me and "ManInBlack":

Why do you believe the 1995 finals (ORL/HOU) had more viewers than the 1994 finals (NY/HOU).

Why did more people tune in to watch this series?

No prejudices. Just looking for your take.

Who cares what ManInPanties thinks? :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

Please settle this for me and "ManInBlack":

Why do you believe the 1995 finals (ORL/HOU) had more viewers than the 1994 finals (NY/HOU).

Why did more people tune in to watch this series?

No prejudices. Just looking for your take.


I don't care really...all I know is that the Spurs had the lowest rated finals in NBA history each time they went....with 6.5 Neilson rating being their lowest ever....meaning the only 6.5 million people watched that shit...meaning only Spurs fan watched that shit :lmao

[jimo2305]

was there bigmarket vs smallmarket team bias by the media back then?

i was pretty young in the 90s but i don't recall media outlets shoving certain teams down your throat like they do now..

as fairweather as i was, i was aware of who the spurs, timberwolves and magic were

[stretch]

So you credit it to the Shaq/Olajuwon rivalry?

Probably more so just because of the fact it had Shaq in it, as opposed to the rivalry.

[stretch]

Man in Black attributes the rise in ratings to Michael Jordan.

He believes Jordan's "Mini comeback" brought back casual viewers.

I personally believe that any casual viewers that Jordan might have brought back probably stopped watching when the Bulls got eliminated in the second round.

Jordan's comeback definitely brought back casual viewers, and while many would have stopped watching when the Bulls were eliminated, I'm sure many were still interested to see how the playoffs would turn out.

[Man In Black]

Jordan's comeback definitely brought back casual viewers, and while many would have stopped watching when the Bulls were eliminated, I'm sure many were still interested to see how the playoffs would turn out.

Exactly, there was other reasons to watch the 95 compared to the 94 Finals. A more free-flowing matchup, a team going for a repeat, and a battle to look forward to between a lion king of a center vs the new t2000 model of one.

There's a reason that, for years, some people called the league...THE JBA.
The Jordan Basketball Association.

[dunkman]

Everyone knew the Knicks weren't to win the Bulls with MJ, that championship wasn't the real deal, the Bulls would win it all in 94. Bad refs decisions prevented the Bulls to push the Knicks to 7 games, and the Rockets needed 7 games to win the finals. The Bulls would have eliminated both teams with MJ.

In 95 there were no excuses to make, as the Magic eliminated the Bulls with MJ. Hakeem reached legendary status after the series vs the Spurs, D Rob was the MVP and an terrific defensive player and Hakeem still made the shots at will, then it was Hakeem vs Shaq another once in w generation player and Penny was very popular player too. Plus the Rockets added Drexler mid season.