65% Chance of Irony Front Heading to SA/Detroit

[pussyface]

One of the re-occuring themes on this website is Detroit and San Antonio fans panicking about the idea of a Dallas/Miami NBA Finals. Many have claimed that they would not watch the series, and that the matchup represents some sort of worst-case scenario for their perception of championship basketball.

This talk is very amusing to me. I feel that it is entirely appropriate, given that the San Antonio/Detroit matchup of last year, the wet dream of Spurstalk.com, represented a "perfect storm" of unwatchability for the rest of America at large, as ratings plummetted to record lows and Americans turned away in droves.

This year, with Miami and Dallas seemingly on a collision course, a Miami/Dallas matchup would pretty much guarantee the NBA its first ratings increase of the post-Jordan era.

During last years finals, only the cities of Detroit and SA paid attention. This year if things play out as they appear, only SA and Detroit won't pay attention.

[Melmart1]

NBA forum

[pussyface]

whatever...this message is for the good people of SA...

[MissAllThat]

Yeah, thats what they said when the Lakers and Pacers were in the Finals, and the Lakers and Sixers, and the Lakers and Pistons, and the Lakers and Nets, and guess what, all those ratings sucked too. Nothing will be an increase from the Jordan era. First ratings increase of the post-Jordan era? This series would be lucky to do what any of the Laker ones have. Jordan's ratings were about twice what the ratings for the finals are now, some years they almost tripled them. That's not gonna happen this year with the Mavs and Heat, and trust me it won't be just Spurs and Pistons fans not watching.

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

true NBA fans will watch a finals series with any teams in it.

[baseline bum]

Could be worse... what if it's a Phoenix-Miami series? :vomit:

[sabar]

No matter what teams get to the finals, the ratings will never be as in the Jordan times. With the NBA and especially the finals and playoffs, people outside of basketball don't follow it much or watch it, unlike say, the super bowl where millions who don't even know the teams or the game will watch it. Jordan was a superstar along with his team and gave some incentive to watch, whether you followed the sport or not.

I'll watch the games no matter what teams get there.

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

No matter what teams get to the finals, the ratings will never be as in the Jordan times. With the NBA and especially the finals and playoffs, people outside of basketball don't follow it much or watch it, unlike say, the super bowl where millions who don't even know the teams or the game will watch it. Jordan was a superstar along with his team and gave some incentive to watch, whether you followed the sport or not.

I'll watch the games no matter what teams get there.


yeh, the NBA in Australia gives you an idea of what Jordan did for the game

during Jordan's prime you could see an NBA game on free to air tv on saturday and they had a show on saturday dedicated to all stuff NBA. You could buy an australian magazine that was all about NBA as well. Trading cards, jerseys etc were everywhere and scores were always given on sports tonight (a sports show that gves updates on sports around the world)

after Jordan there was nothing, u get one or two games a week and thats on ESPN so if u dont have cable then its bad luck. Trading cards are very hard to come by, Jerseys only come out in a few varieties and you cant even get an update of scores on TV anymore (not that it matters as much now coz of the net).

But it was mostly coz of MJ that the NBA was big in Australia. As an aussie i can only hope Bogut starts to lead the way in making the NBA also target the Australian market before i go crazy :smokin

[ponky]

true NBA fans will watch a finals series with any teams in it.


exactly, BUT the fact that the playoffs have moved to cable doesn't help, i miss the old days of nba on nbc but i have to spend money on nba league pass, nbatv, etc because i don't want to miss out on games...lots of nba fans don't have cable and if they do, they may only have basic...if the nba cared about its viewership then it wouldn't have signed a stupid deal with tnt/abc (owns ESPN) basically forcing many people to wait until the NBA Finals before they can view some basketball...it's hard to get into the finals if you haven't watched the previous rounds

of course, viewership is up this year compared to previous years because of all the close series, great nytimes article link posted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/sports/basketball/24sandomir.html

[ChumpDumper]

it's hard to get into the finals if you haven't watched the previous roundsNah, it's hard to get into the finals when you live in LA or New York and couldn't give half a shit about any team not covered by your local paper.

[ponky]

Nah, it's hard to get into the finals when you live in LA or New York and couldn't give half a shit about any team not covered by your local paper.

i lived in nyc until last year and rooted for the mavs, no problem at all...buying nets tix to see my favorite road teams were easy as pie...and the nytimes covers all teams...besides, we're talking tv here, not people who actually go to the games...people in nyc will attend a knicks regular season game before they'll attend a nets playoff game anyday, doesn't mean the rest of the nation really cares two cents about the knicks or that new yorkers at home won't tune into the finals

also, new york fans have every team covered, i've seen fans run the gamut from bosox, to pistons, to lakers, to spurs, to north carolina, to duke, they don't just care about their own teams

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, I lived in California and followed the Spurs on LeaguePass.

That really helped the finals ratings.

[Nbadan]

The NBA isn't about marketing to the fans anymore, it's about marketing to the corporations that pay for the luxury boxes and the air-time on TNT/ESPN. This is one of the main reason I believe Stern has to go. Let's bring the playoffs back to network T.V.. Let's quit treating our Stars with kid-gloves so they become immune to contact, and let's add a tape-review of controversial calls like they have in the NFL. Let's promote the league in disadvantaged school grounds around the country by using fine-money to build 'home-courts' for kids. Let's franchise The NBA Experience that travels with the All-Star game to coliseums and Arenas around the country, not just in NBA cities.

[ponky]

Yeah, I lived in California and followed the Spurs on LeaguePass.

That really helped the finals ratings.

You watched the finals on LeaguePass?....must have been in a league of your own, some special package for Spurs fans. I've had LeaguePass for six years now and have never once seen a playoff game on one of those channels.

[ChumpDumper]

You watched the finals on LeaguePass?.No. That's how I followed them, not how I watched the finals.

I don't expect a Mav fan to be able to make the connection.

You are forgiven.

[ponky]

The NBA isn't about marketing to the fans anymore, it's about marketing to the corporations that pay for the luxury boxes and the air-time on TNT/ESPN. This is one of the main reason I believe Stern has to go. Let's bring the playoffs back to network T.V.. Let's quit treating our Stars with kid-gloves so they become immune to contact, and let's add a tape-review of controversial calls like they have in the NFL. Let's promote the league in disadvantaged school grounds around the country by using fine-money to build 'home-courts' for kids. Let's franchise The NBA Experience that travels with the All-Star game to coliseums and Arenas around the country, not just in NBA cities.


I agree with all of this...except the instant replay review. I hate the NFL precisely because of this review crap although it's a bit more warranted in the NFL where one drive/play usually has a lot more of an impact than one basket. The NBA already has instant replay for end of the quarter calls, that's enough. For such a fast-paced game, instant replay for controversial calls would be a death sentence. The only thing I might accede to is if the coaches each had one token to request an instant replay on a controversial call, one-time only per game.

[ponky]

No. That's how I followed them, not how I watched the finals.

I don't expect a Mav fan to be able to make the connection.

You are forgiven.


You're the one who made the stupid mistake with your poor attempt at sarcasm. Don't use NBA League Pass when referring to the finals if you don't expect a sarcastic retort.

[ChumpDumper]

The mistake is yours.

I read magazines and internets too.

Again, you are forgiven.

[Nbadan]

I think tape review is the only way to add real-time accountability to the game, and we learned in this years series with the Mav's, one bad call can change the outcome of a game.

[ponky]

I think tape review is the only way to add real-time accountability to the game, and we learned in this years series with the Mav's, one bad call can change the outcome of a game.

One bad call? You seriously believe this to be the case, that ONE, and ONLY ONE, bad call occurred in whichever game you're talking about that resulted in a Mavs win? Just curious, which game is it? So who would get to decide if a call is controversial? The coaches? The refs? The fans? What if there's a controversial call every 2-3 minutes? We stop and review tape for all these calls? Bad calls are usually canceled out at some point in a game, if they happen at the end as opposed to the beginning of a game, that's tough but still, it's not any less fair for them to happen at the beginning than at the end.

[ponky]

The mistake is yours.

I read magazines and internets too.

Again, you are forgiven.

In denial...typical and right now, given your circumstance, understandable for some Spurs fans. Anyway, if you ever care to explain your *mistake* feel free to do so...that's what I thought.

[Nbadan]

The blocking call against Duncan against Dirk changed the course of Game 5(?). Without that Call, the Spurs are up by 7 and the Mav's are sunk.

[ChumpDumper]

Had I made a mistake, I'd explain it.

I didn't, so I don't have to.

Individuals following teams <> finals ratings.

I still don't expect you to understand.

[ponky]

Had I made a mistake, I'd explain it.

I didn't, so I don't have to.

Individuals following teams <> finals ratings.

I still don't expect you to understand.

My point, if you read the original post carefully, was not about following individual teams, it was about watching the playoffs while living in NYC and how it's not easily accessible unless you have stuff like TNT/ESPN because DUH, no local channels to bail you out.



Nah, it's hard to get into the finals when you live in LA or New York and couldn't give half a shit about any team not covered by your local paper.


LA and New York have national papers, not *local* cute ones like the S.A. Express. If you read the internets as you so claimed, following your Spurs wouldn't have been a problem while living in California. Way to look like a moron.

[ponky]

The blocking call against Duncan against Dirk changed the course of Game 5(?). Without that Call, the Spurs are up by 7 and the Mav's are sunk.


I went to Game 5 in S.A., Spurs won. Maybe Game 4? I don't remember a blocking call against Duncan in Game 4 but I can check it out tomorrow. I remember a miss by Duncan at the very end of the game but no call on the other end after that miss. Spurs got tons of calls that went their way in Game 7, even Spurs fans like Kerr started pointing this out. In that game, these calls didn't affect us negatively in the end so should these have been automatically reviewed anyway? I don't think so. When do these calls get reviewed? What about Parker's jersey grabbing on Dirk's last shot in Game 5, a shot that would have potentially won the game for the Mavs? Review? No. My point is, that we would have a six hour game if every call was reviewed.

[ChumpDumper]

My point, if you read the original post carefully, was not about following individual teams, it was about watching the playoffs while living in NYC and how it's not easily accessible unless you have stuff like TNT/ESPN because DUH, no local channels to bail you out.So you weren't saying anything relevant. I accept that.
LA and New York have national papers, not *local* cute ones like the S.A. Express. If you read the internets as you so claimed, following your Spurs wouldn't have been a problem while living in California.It wasn't a problem.

Way to miss the point.

Again.

Quit while you are far, far behind.

[ponky]

So you weren't saying anything relevant. I accept that.It wasn't a problem.

Way to miss the point.

Again.

Quit while you are far, far behind.


Far behind what? An idiot who selectively takes one line from a post and runs with it rather than taking the time out to follow the thread? Yeah, I'm far far behind, ha. Guess Bill Simmons was right after all: “The funny part was all the angry e-mails from the San Antonio area -- is San Antonio a third world country or something and nobody told me? I haven't seen that many misspellings and crazed threats in the history of my column,” wrote Simmons. “If there was a way to send e-mails in capital letters and crayons, that would have been the typical response from a Spurs fan. Do they have school systems there or is it simply home schooling and that's it?” Next time you try to be sarcastic and post something witty, don't.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow, again with the irrelevant blather.

Next time you try to post something, don't.

[ponky]

Wow, again with the irrelevant blather.

Next time you try to post something, don't.


Are you that starved for attention? Look at all those threads where you've had the last post. Continue dreaming about the off season (yes, i read your long-winded wish list on that other thread) and while you're at it, work on your sarcasm so you'll be ready when we pwn your ass again next season. Goodnight.

[ChumpDumper]

Look at all those threads where you've had the last postHey, I've been away for awhile and I'm awake.
yes, i read your long-winded wish list on that other threadCan't look away can you?

Feel free to scroll.

[fyatuk]

I won't watch the Finals. I'm not watching any of the playoffs. The early round officiating (of all the series) turned me off so much I have no interest in this years playoffs. If it wasn't a game 7, I wouldn't have watched the last game between the Mavs and Spurs.

I don't like spending an entire game yelling at refs.

[Jdspur20]

that would have been the typical response from a Spurs fan.


so spurs fans have there own responses now?

[ShoogarBear]

Why don't we just have a Stupid Fucking Mav Fans forum?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

ponky, just shut up :lol

[I H8 Mavs Fans]

100% chance of Mavs fans still being assholes

[ponky]

hahahaha, nice to see everyone in a tiff about nothing, read the original thread and then respond...this didn't have anything to do with spurs/mavs in the beginning, i was just posting about ratings and the nba moving to cable...your little chumpdumper starting in with the "mavs fan" bullshit...way to back up a loser, twice

[FromWayDowntown]

If the insinuation is that people would rather watch the Mavericks than the Spurs, I don't buy that. I don't see the Mavericks playing a style that is appreciably more watchable than the style the Spurs now play. It's not like this is the 2003 up-and-down and in the high 100's Mavericks; FWIW, during the regular season, the Mavericks played at a slower offensive pace each night than the Spurs did.

I don't see the Mavericks having any real ratings-getter on the roster -- no Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Wade. And I'm not sure that the average sports viewer who doesn't pay much attention to regular season NBA will hear "Dirk Nowitzki" and think "superstar;" they should, but I'm not sure he carries that clout yet. And I don't see the Mavericks having tremendous international appeal (outside of perhaps Germany).

If the Mavs reach the Finals and play Miami, the increase in ratings will have everything to do with bringing back the bedwetters who can't watch the NBA unless Shaq is involved. That, or the DWade crew. If the Mavs reach the Finals and play Detroit, I'm not sure viewership will increase appreciably, other than the influx of homes in Dallas that suddenly tune in.

[pussyface]

100% percent chance of the Spurs not playing in the finals.

[leemajors]

the nba went to cable because they were able to offer more money. ponky must still have problems connecting the dots.

[DubMcDub]

If the insinuation is that people would rather watch the Mavericks than the Spurs, I don't buy that. I don't see the Mavericks playing a style that is appreciably more watchable than the style the Spurs now play. It's not like this is the 2003 up-and-down and in the high 100's Mavericks; FWIW, during the regular season, the Mavericks played at a slower offensive pace each night than the Spurs did.

I don't see the Mavericks having any real ratings-getter on the roster -- no Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Wade. And I'm not sure that the average sports viewer who doesn't pay much attention to regular season NBA will hear "Dirk Nowitzki" and think "superstar;" they should, but I'm not sure he carries that clout yet. And I don't see the Mavericks having tremendous international appeal (outside of perhaps Germany).

If the Mavs reach the Finals and play Miami, the increase in ratings will have everything to do with bringing back the bedwetters who can't watch the NBA unless Shaq is involved. That, or the DWade crew. If the Mavs reach the Finals and play Detroit, I'm not sure viewership will increase appreciably, other than the influx of homes in Dallas that suddenly tune in.

There was an ESPN SportsNation poll the day of Game 7 and 82% of the country said they would rather see Dallas win than San Antonio.

Only 45% or so said they thought Dallas would actually win, but EIGHTY TWO percent said they wanted them to.

That's pretty telling. Keep going on and on about how the average person wouldn't rather watch the Mavericks though....

[FromWayDowntown]

There was an ESPN SportsNation poll the day of Game 7 and 82% of the country said they would rather see Dallas win than San Antonio.

Only 45% or so said they thought Dallas would actually win, but EIGHTY TWO percent said they wanted them to.

That's pretty telling. Keep going on and on about how the average person wouldn't rather watch the Mavericks though....

You assume that's because the average fan would rather watch the Mavericks -- the poll didn't ask that question. Explain to me how that result means that a substantially higher number of people would watch the Mavericks, should they make the Finals, than would have (or have) watched the Spurs.

Make a case for why the Mavericks (independent of the Miami Hype Machine) are going to draw viewers to the Finals. Seriously. I'd like to know what you think -- I'd like to know what I'm missing about the national television audience darlings in Dallas.

In the end, we'll see. I just haven't yet seen anyone explain to me how the Mavericks are substantially more compelling to a national television audience than the Spurs.

[DubMcDub]

You assume that's because the average fan would rather watch the Mavericks -- the poll didn't ask that question. Explain to me how that result means that a substantially higher number of people would watch the Mavericks, should they make the Finals, than would have (or have) watched the Spurs.

Make a case for why the Mavericks (independent of the Miami Hype Machine) are going to draw viewers to the Finals. Seriously. I'd like to know what you think -- I'd like to know what I'm missing about the national television audience darlings in Dallas.

In the end, we'll see. I just haven't yet seen anyone explain to me how the Mavericks are substantially more compelling to a national television audience than the Spurs.

I don't necessarily think it is the case that substantially more or less people would watch either way. But I do think the nation clearly would prefer to see the Mavericks. Their style of play is more entertaining to the average basketball fan (your typical fan always has and always will prefer scoring to defense), AND, perhaps even more importantly, the Spurs have won 3 recent titles--people without a stake in either the Mavs or the Spurs would probably choose the Mavs simply because they'd rather see a "new" team get a shot at a title.

I think it's quite possible (as the poll proves) that many people DO have a definite preference, but I don't know if that preference would necessarily dictate whether they watch. For example, I REALLY wanted a Spurs-Heat final last year, but I still watched every game even though it was the Pistons.

[veronicamae]

LA and New York have national papers, not *local* cute ones like the S.A. Express. If you read the internets as you so claimed, following your Spurs wouldn't have been a problem while living in California. Way to look like a moron.

Last I checked, there is the New York Times as well as the Los Angeles Times - local papers, not national. Every city has a national paper, it's called the USA Today. :rolleyes

[ChumpDumper]

I have no problem admitting the lowest common denominator fan would prefer to see Dallas.

punky still doen't know what the hell he or anyone else is talking about. Expect another non sequitur ramble from him soon. Although he'll probably take some time figuring out what the previous sentence means.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't necessarily think it is the case that substantially more or less people would watch either way. But I do think the nation clearly would prefer to see the Mavericks.

It could be. I'd be surprised, if only because the non-local NBA fan isn't about the compelling nature of teams; it's all about transcendant media superstars and the only such person involved in the Mavericks organization is Mark Cuban. I'm not sure that most sports fans in the United States know enough about Dirk Nowitzki to have decided whether to love him or hate him -- at least not yet. As much as you may wish to believe that the Mavericks team and players are compelling stories and will be embraced on a broad scale when placed on the ultimate stage, I can tell you that we went through the same things with our Spurs and have seen that the storyline doesn't sell unless Shaq or Kobe or someone like that is in the opposite uniform.


Their style of play is more entertaining to the average basketball fan (your typical fan always has and always will prefer scoring to defense),

But, see, that's my point. The Mavericks don't play a style that is tremendously different than the Spurs any more. The teams are far more similar in terms of style than they are dissimilar. I don't think the difference in the recent series was as much about styles of play as some would argue. If anything, the Mavericks had to adjust from their own style to jump out 3-1, and at that, were only marginally better than the Spurs were in playing that style. It's not as if the Mavs play a Suns-like style while the Spurs play like they did in the late 90's. If there's a perception that the styles are different, that perception strikes me as quite wrong.


AND, perhaps even more importantly, the Spurs have won 3 recent titles--people without a stake in either the Mavs or the Spurs would probably choose the Mavs simply because they'd rather see a "new" team get a shot at a title.

I buy that as an explanation for the polling data that you cite.


I think it's quite possible (as the poll proves) that many people DO have a definite preference, but I don't know if that preference would necessarily dictate whether they watch. For example, I REALLY wanted a Spurs-Heat final last year, but I still watched every game even though it was the Pistons.

Other than the above rationale, I'm not sure that there is a preference between the Spurs and Mavs -- other than that the media has been pounding the "Spurs are boring" mantra into the heads of casual fans for years while the Mavericks are perceived by some in the media to be more like their 2001-03 teams than they really are any more.

I'll watch every game, too.

[mabber]

If the insinuation is that people would rather watch the Mavericks than the Spurs, I don't buy that. I don't see the Mavericks playing a style that is appreciably more watchable than the style the Spurs now play. It's not like this is the 2003 up-and-down and in the high 100's Mavericks; FWIW, during the regular season, the Mavericks played at a slower offensive pace each night than the Spurs did.

I don't see the Mavericks having any real ratings-getter on the roster -- no Kobe, Shaq, Lebron, Wade. And I'm not sure that the average sports viewer who doesn't pay much attention to regular season NBA will hear "Dirk Nowitzki" and think "superstar;" they should, but I'm not sure he carries that clout yet. And I don't see the Mavericks having tremendous international appeal (outside of perhaps Germany).

If the Mavs reach the Finals and play Miami, the increase in ratings will have everything to do with bringing back the bedwetters who can't watch the NBA unless Shaq is involved. That, or the DWade crew. If the Mavs reach the Finals and play Detroit, I'm not sure viewership will increase appreciably, other than the influx of homes in Dallas that suddenly tune in.

I agree with this post and I'm a Mav fan. To add to it, the NBA final's ratings won't increase significantly until LeBron makes it there. The average fan watches because of the player not the team. As mentioned above, Shaq would draw some in. Kobe could do that as well.

[leemajors]

I agree with this post and I'm a Mav fan. To add to it, the NBA final's ratings won't increase significantly until LeBron makes it there. The average fan watches because of the player not the team. As mentioned above, Shaq would draw some in. Kobe could do that as well.

true, true. NBA is a star driven league. the NFL is a better example of a team driven game.

[cherylsteele]

100% percent chance of the Spurs not playing in the finals.
Thank you Captain Obvious :rolleyes
http://fs6.deviantart.com/i/2005/028/3/b/Captain_Obvious_by_anothercynic.jpg

[I H8 Mavs Fans]

100% percent chance of the Spurs not playing in the finals.

No shit sherlock, you want to tell us that the Earth orbits the Sun while you're at it, also I think this little stat can be infered by your original post

[DubMcDub]

It could be. I'd be surprised, if only because the non-local NBA fan isn't about the compelling nature of teams; it's all about transcendant media superstars and the only such person involved in the Mavericks organization is Mark Cuban. I'm not sure that most sports fans in the United States know enough about Dirk Nowitzki to have decided whether to love him or hate him -- at least not yet. As much as you may wish to believe that the Mavericks team and players are compelling stories and will be embraced on a broad scale when placed on the ultimate stage, I can tell you that we went through the same things with our Spurs and have seen that the storyline doesn't sell unless Shaq or Kobe or someone like that is in the opposite uniform.



But, see, that's my point. The Mavericks don't play a style that is tremendously different than the Spurs any more. The teams are far more similar in terms of style than they are dissimilar. I don't think the difference in the recent series was as much about styles of play as some would argue. If anything, the Mavericks had to adjust from their own style to jump out 3-1, and at that, were only marginally better than the Spurs were in playing that style. It's not as if the Mavs play a Suns-like style while the Spurs play like they did in the late 90's. If there's a perception that the styles are different, that perception strikes me as quite wrong.



I buy that as an explanation for the polling data that you cite.



Other than the above rationale, I'm not sure that there is a preference between the Spurs and Mavs -- other than that the media has been pounding the "Spurs are boring" mantra into the heads of casual fans for years while the Mavericks are perceived by some in the media to be more like their 2001-03 teams than they really are any more.

I'll watch every game, too.

I just wanted to say I appreciated your reasoned and well thought points here. Nice to see someone who doesn't immediately resort to attacks.

I agree with you, too. The Mavericks play a "Spurs-lite" brand of ball these days. But regardless of the reality, the perception is still apparent from time to time that the Mavericks are a "high-octane" team whereas the Spurs are slow and boring.

Now, I'm not saying this notion is accurate or justified. I'm just saying it's there.

[Buddy Holly]

That's pretty telling.

Yeah, I mean you and like 5 internet nerds.

Give me a break kid.

[DubMcDub]

Yeah, I mean you and like 5 internet nerds.

Give me a break kid.

More like the ~60,000 people that vote on ESPN's SportsNation polls.

I do appreciate the irony in you calling people "internet nerds" over a message board.

[I H8 Mavs Fans]

I do appreciate the irony in you calling people "internet nerds" over a message board.



That's just fucking weak man.

[MissAllThat]

You guys just don't get. Mavs/Heat fans (and by this I mean actual fans, not people who have recently hopped on the bandwagon) aren't really making a difference in the ratings. Neither are Spurs/Pistons/Kings/Lakers/Nets/etc fans who follow the NBA, again no big ratings blow up with avid sports fans watching. The ONLY way the NBA Finals (and I don't care who's in it) will have huge ratings is if that airhead you saw 2 weeks ago who looked shocked when she found out Shaq now plays for the Heat, or that guy who didn't know LA had 2 teams, or my brother who for some reason thought Phoenix had several big named superstars only to later realize 5 min later that the only guy he'd ever heard of on the court was Nash, you know the people who aren't avid fans start watching. When Shaq was in LA with Kobe, he brought that regular person to the TV. Kobe still gets that person interested, so does Lebron James. I mean how many times do you see them broadcasting a regular season high school game on TV and then people actually watching/talking about it? Not often. I don't know if Shaq still has as much of a star appeal in Miami, and since yes I've actually heard people say things such as "Who do the Heat actually have on their team thats good," I'd say its pretty safe to say that the answer is no.

Basically what I'm saying is I don't think it matters who's in the playoffs, the ratings are going to be pretty abysmal compared to the Jordan era ratings until there is some sort of super star or amazing story (such as perhaps an 8 seed sweeping their way through the playoffs or something) to drag people to watch. You guys here on a message board bickering at each other really don't make that much of a difference. Its those people who were sitting around watching Desperate Housewives/Grey's Anatomy that they need to turn the games on.

[Darrin]

One of the re-occuring themes on this website is Detroit and San Antonio fans panicking about the idea of a Dallas/Miami NBA Finals. Many have claimed that they would not watch the series, and that the matchup represents some sort of worst-case scenario for their perception of championship basketball.

This talk is very amusing to me. I feel that it is entirely appropriate, given that the San Antonio/Detroit matchup of last year, the wet dream of Spurstalk.com, represented a "perfect storm" of unwatchability for the rest of America at large, as ratings plummetted to record lows and Americans turned away in droves.

This year, with Miami and Dallas seemingly on a collision course, a Miami/Dallas matchup would pretty much guarantee the NBA its first ratings increase of the post-Jordan era.

During last years finals, only the cities of Detroit and SA paid attention. This year if things play out as they appear, only SA and Detroit won't pay attention.

I care as much about this post as you cared for the 2005 Finals.

By the way, the Pistons-Lakers drew the highest average ratings since the 1997 NBA Finals. Nevada was particularly interested in this series. I wonder why?

[ponky]

the nba went to cable because they were able to offer more money. ponky must still have problems connecting the dots.

no shit sherlock...next time start reading the posts from the first one and you'll see that i covered that multi-million dollar deal between stern and the networks

[MANU GINOBALKI]

The ratings will not be as good as the Jordan era.

But I do think the ratings would be better than last year if the Mavs play the Heat. Because of the Heat. Most fans love flashy players or guys who can score 30 points more then a team like the Pistons who don't have a "Superstar". And even when Chauncey or Rip score 30 or more they are not dunking or crossing people over. They are dropping jumpers.

Duncan is a top 5 player but alot of people are not going to sit down and be excited to see him play. I would but most people wouldn't.

But the Heat have Shaq and Wade and people love them both. Flashy players like Wade make people watch. And Shaq is a very popular player around the country. I don't know why but he is.


I wouldn't watch any of the Finals if the Heat played the Mavs untill the Mavs had 3 wins and were going to win. Not because I like the Mavs but because I HATE the Heat and love watching Shaq lose.

I would have loved a rematch between us and the Spurs. That was a great series. One of the best I ever watched. Maybe the best. Even though we lost I still haven't seen many series that good. Especially in the Finals.

But most people would much rather see two "Superstars" and a bunch of scoring then two teams and alot of defense.

But it doesn't matter because the Pistons are going to beat the Heat. It's only 2-1 not 3-1.

[leemajors]

no shit sherlock...next time start reading the posts from the first one and you'll see that i covered that multi-million dollar deal between stern and the networks

all you said is that they shouldn't have signed a deal with espn/abc, you said nothing about the money involved. your attempts at condescension are pathetic. if you had taken the time to read chump's posts, you would realize how foolish your attempts at rebuke sound.

[MadDog73]

Lakers vs Cavs are Stern's wetdream right now, you can bet your a$$. Kobe vs James.

Chances of that happening? About the same chance I'll win the lottery.