This will make you feel better: Low ratings for Game 1 NBA Finals 2006 [Archive]

Mavs_All_the_Way

06-10-2006, 03:47 AM

The Low ratings continue, see, is not only the Spurs.... :angel

CBS Blocks ABC's Shot Thursday NBA Finals get off to slow start; 'Windfall' OK for NBC

June 9 2006

Despite the presence of two big-market teams and a handful of stars, the NBA Finals didn't generate very big ratings for ABC Thursday, allowing CBS to take the night.

CBS averaged a 6.9 rating/12 share in primetime, beating out ABC's 5.9/10 (with the Finals airing live, those numbers may change some in the final ratings). FOX took third with a 5.2/9. NBC, 4.7/8, came in fourth, while both The WB, 1.5/3, and UPN, 1.1/2, were well back.

ABC did score a win among adults 18-49, drawing a 3.5 rating. FOX was a close second in the demographic with a 3.3. NBC, 2.8, edged CBS, 2.7, for third. The WB averaged 0.8 and UPN 0.7.

The pregame show "NBA Nation" scored a 4.7/9 for ABC at 8 p.m., narrowly winning the hour over CBS' "Gameshow Marathon," 4.6/8 (CBS had a small lead in total viewers). An hour of "My Name Is Earl" was third for NBC at 4.3/8. FOX was fourth with a repeat of "So You Think You Can Dance." The WB's "Smallville" rerun, 1.6/3, topped UPN's "Everybody Hates Chris" and "Love, Inc."

CBS took over the lead at 9 p.m. with a "CSI" rerun, 8.3/14. Game 1 of the NBA Finals between the Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat posted a 6.3/10, edging a new "So You Think You Can Dance," 6.2/10, on FOX. Two more episodes of "Earl" averaged 4.1/7 for NBC. "Supernatural" kept The WB in fifth, ahead of "Eve" and "Cuts" on UPN.

"Without a Trace" finished CBS' night with a 7.8/13 at 10 p.m. ABC's NBA coverage improved to 6.9/12. The premiere of "Windfall" on NBC delivered a 5.8/10.

Ratings information is taken from fast national data, which includes live and same-day DVR viewing. All numbers are preliminary and subject to change, especially in the case of live telecasts.

NBA Junkie

06-10-2006, 04:40 AM

I'm not surprised. Ratings would naturally be at their highest when the big three markets of LA, CHI, and NY are involved as there would be a larger sampling of people in those areas following the games.

Of course, the LA and Chicago markets were also greatly influenced by having the Jordan's, O'Neal's and Bryant's participating as casual and diehard fans in the US had a love/hate relationship with those Bull/Laker dynasties. By now, O'Neal isn't as popular as he once was due to declining skills and guys like Dwyane Wade and Dirk Nowitzki aren't household names that are connecting with the casual fan. In Wade's case...at least not yet.

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 07:40 AM

I'm surprised. After all there's Shaq and then you have a team playing the open court style that Stern has been advocating for years. I think the problem is that the US simply has gone to sleep on basketball.

gospursgojas

06-10-2006, 08:10 AM

The MTV Movie Awards were also on the same night as game 1

whottt

06-10-2006, 08:11 AM

Shank

06-10-2006, 08:59 AM

what noone wanted to watch them trade fts

There were 45 FTA Thursday night. The lowest number of FTA in the Dal-Sa series was 50 in Game 5.

Shank

06-10-2006, 09:01 AM

this just in

only fans of basketball watch them play

leemajors

06-10-2006, 09:06 AM

you think it would have done better on tnt or espn? only the nfl can compete with primetime shows.

leemajors

06-10-2006, 09:07 AM

or, better off staying on those channels. the shares would not be better.

leemajors

06-10-2006, 09:38 AM

those would get far worse ratings, unless it were yanks vs sox every night. then the whole east coast would watch

Mr. Body

06-10-2006, 09:59 AM

Shouldn't have started the series on a Thursday. BIG prime time night.

Also, starting it randomly on a night five days after the earlier series' ended didn't help.

leemajors

06-10-2006, 10:00 AM

it is a big prime time night but everything is in reruns. it probably would have helped to have it start less than a business week after the conference finals. then you have 2 full days between games...

ducks

06-10-2006, 10:02 AM

here is a thought

put it on cbs or nbc and people who do not have cable will watch it

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-10-2006, 10:11 AM

here is a thought

put it on cbs or nbc and people who do not have cable will watch it

Since when did you need cable to watch ABC?

I guess you gotta add Dallas and Miami to the boring list with the Spurs.

ducks

06-10-2006, 10:12 AM

in yuma,az you have to have cable to get abc

bonesinaz

06-10-2006, 10:20 AM

You need cable in northern AZ to watch ABC....or anything else current for that matter.

angel_luv

06-10-2006, 10:24 AM

Wow that is not cool. I thought everyone got ABC.

Mr. Body

06-10-2006, 10:36 AM

Wow that is not cool. I thought everyone got ABC.

Everybody does, technically. It's a broadcast network. The problem is, some people live too far from a transmitter to get clear reception, so need to feed it through cable.

I lived for a while in Bloomington, Indiana. Same problem with all the network channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB).

TDMVPDPOY

06-10-2006, 10:39 AM

WORLDCUP>NBA FTW

Seriously the wc is live coverage here in australia on nationally tv, and the channel that recieved the rights didnt have to pay a cent cose soccer in australia is just buildin up again after poor management etc, and the guyz that have stick with soccer and promoting it over the years were the multicultural channel that showed other sports and movies etc... compared to the other rich channels tryin to get into the soccer vibe didnt get shit from fifa :D:D

the nba use to be shown here in australia on national tv for free even though were were like 1 week behind :(, then they stopped showin it probaly to protect the local leagues interest. The local league is down the drain also since you can only view from cable tv. Its not even popular here in australia, you think with bogut in nba was goin to do anything, it did jackshit, ask every australian baller on here, even bogut said it on tv that the clowns here werent doin enough for the sport.

Cant_Be_Faded

06-10-2006, 10:40 AM

who wouldn't want to watch the mavs free throw themselves to another fair and hard earned victory?

Cant_Be_Faded

06-10-2006, 10:41 AM

Thats the aspect I liked about games 2-5. Dirk was so Larry Bird esque that he diddn't even have to make a real field goal to rack up points. He willed himself to win, at the free throw line. He's so larry bird esque now!

I am a fan of good basketball and damnit that was good entertaining ball

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-10-2006, 10:50 AM

So Yuma, Az. is the demographic that is killing the NBA's ratings, ducks? :lol

ducks

06-10-2006, 10:58 AM

Everybody does, technically. It's a broadcast network. The problem is, some people live too far from a transmitter to get clear reception, so need to feed it through cable.

I lived for a while in Bloomington, Indiana. Same problem with all the network channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, WB).

not just yuma ahf places where they get no signal

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-10-2006, 11:04 AM

not just yuma ahf places where they get no signal

And again, do you really think that places with low enough population densities like that are what's killing the ratings?

ducks

06-10-2006, 11:09 AM

what is killing the ratings is everyone knows shaq gets away with o fouls all the team

6 charging fouls against heat
0 against mavs in game one
everyone knows cuban pays the refs at home off because they know if mavs lose he will send in a tape

you want more people to watch sports put more games on nbc,cbs and abc
not everyone will be able to get those channels without cable but if you show games on espn,tnt you must have cable no question

ratings have been higher this year I think you give it one more game
thursday night is a school night (some are still in school) and starting a game at 9:00 in east coast to me is fucking stupid. that is where more people are. game gets over at midnight with foul shots

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-10-2006, 11:23 AM

People had no problem saying the teams were boring when SA and Detroit played on a school night at 8:00.

Quit making excuses for them.

The overwhelming problem with the ratings is all the bullshit media hype the league runs all year long. They cram Kobe, TMac, Lebron, and Vince down everyone's throat, then when they're not there at the end people don't hvae as much interest.

Until the NBA changes its marketing strategy to market teams and and team basketball, ratings will continue to suck.

strangeweather

06-10-2006, 02:31 PM

People have been tuning out the NBA playoffs for years -- ever since Jordan retired from Chicago. This year, there was fairly wide media acclaim that the playoffs were exciting, but it takes a while for that to filter through to the public. If this is a tightly contested series and goes 6 or 7, expect the ratings to pick up as the series goes on. If one team looks to run away with it, they won't.

Even if the sports media are shouting from the rooftops that this is an exciting series, there may be less people that tune in this year to watch it then hear about it secondhand, and start to wonder if they should start watching basketball again next year. If Stern wants to make the NBA more popular, what really needs to happen is 2-3 years in a row of exciting, dramatic playoffs.

strangeweather

06-10-2006, 02:36 PM

The overwhelming problem with the ratings is all the bullshit media hype the league runs all year long. They cram Kobe, TMac, Lebron, and Vince down everyone's throat, then when they're not there at the end people don't hvae as much interest.

Until the NBA changes its marketing strategy to market teams and and team basketball, ratings will continue to suck.
Why exactly? Football markets teams, and does very well with it. Basketball isn't football. Golf markets individual players and seems to do just fine. Basketball isn't golf, either.

Basketball's greatest era of popularity was when they were marketing guys like Magic, Bird, and Jordan. There's only 10 guys on a basketball court at a time so it's more practical to focus on the personalities of key players than it does with 22 players on a football field, all of them wearing helmets.

I'm not saying that marketing individual personalities is sure to work, but what makes you so sure that it can't, and that marketing the teams is the path to prosperity?

Sense

06-10-2006, 02:39 PM

Hope it continues like this, stern will have to stop tryin to gettin teams in the finals rather than the teams earnin it..

clubalien

06-10-2006, 02:50 PM

Fans might watch the game just to see how TO turns out. I will always watch since I am a san antonio spur and dallas cow fan no matter players. Just saying because of TO some other peopl might watch dallas this season. Then again dallas cows are americas team. and fuck you NFL for taking the turkey game away from dallas.

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-10-2006, 03:05 PM

Why exactly? Football markets teams, and does very well with it. Basketball isn't football. Golf markets individual players and seems to do just fine. Basketball isn't golf, either.

Well, there is the very obvious fact that football is a team sport, and the league markets teams, and is successful, whereas golf is an individual sport, one that their target demographic of middle aged men who go out and hack their way to a 92 every weekend identify with, and accordingly in an individual sport the marketed individual does well.

I'm sorry if you can't see the correlation.

As to Bird/Michael/Magic... They were also meeting each other in the Finals and spearheaded a couple of the recent most NBA dynasties.

The other thing Bird and Magic had going for them is they put on one of the last great enigmatic duels in college ball on the grandest stage of them all (Final Four championship game) before going pro.

The Bird-Magic battle in 79' is widely attributed to being the catalyst for the present day success and popularity of the Final Four and March Madness as the most exciting event in American sports, and second world wide to the World Cup. You don't get that from today's college players due to people leaving early.

Like I said, the league marketed those guys, and they made it to the Finals. Hence, mission accomplished for the league - great Finals TV ratings.

Nowadays, the league markets a bunch of guys who aren't making it to the Finals, and *shockingly* the ratings suck. Everyone gets told all year long that TMac, King James, Kobe, etc. are the shit, and every year they're done playing ball by mid-May and the average joe doesn't have any interest in who's left.

If the league wants good ratings in the Finals it needs to figure out who's most likely to be there at the end and market those players and teams all year long.

Basically, market players from Phoenix, Dallas, and SA from the west, and Miami and Detroit from the East, and they'll get good ratings.

I'm sorry you don't get it strangeweather, maybe you're related to Stern after all.

strangeweather

06-10-2006, 03:37 PM

If the league wants good ratings in the Finals it needs to figure out who's most likely to be there at the end and market those players and teams all year long.

Basically, market players from Phoenix, Dallas, and SA from the west, and Miami and Detroit from the East, and they'll get good ratings.
Yay, more gratuitous insults from AHF. My day is complete.

Michael Jordan was a tentpole they hung league marketing on long before he was a fixture in the games in June.

Working harder at marketing to sell marketable players on successful teams like Nash, 'Sheed, Dirk, Chauncey, DWade, Amare, Tim, Manu, Tony -- that makes perfect sense.

It's not immediately clear to me that your previous post

Until the NBA changes its marketing strategy to market teams and and team basketball, ratings will continue to suck.
is advocating that. It sounds a lot like your previous post was advocating marketing the uniform, not the player, which is the classic NFL playbook.

I still don't see why that's a better strategy than marketing players.

George Gervin's Afro

06-10-2006, 09:48 PM

I did not watch a second of the game..

Trainwreck2100

06-10-2006, 09:53 PM

It doesn't help that the Finals have to start a week after all the other games, it's cause stupid ABC. NBC didn't have a set date they just rolled with the punches.

Slinkyman

06-10-2006, 10:04 PM

It doesn't help that the Finals have to start a week after all the other games, it's cause stupid ABC. NBC didn't have a set date they just rolled with the punches.

How is that logical? When the superbowl is 2 weeks from the AFC/NFC championship game it doesn't have lower ratings.

JealousOnesNV

06-10-2006, 10:10 PM

ESPN and ABC's coverage of the NBA sucks....No true heated rivalries between teams or players.....This is why you have low ratings. The league needs to look at how they used to do things in the 80's and early 90's especially when it comes to the rules of the game.

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 10:57 PM

What is killing the Finals is that NY or LA isn't involved. After that, it's the fact that Dallas has a neanderthal as a star.

clubalien

06-10-2006, 11:12 PM

the superbowl is only one game

the nba is multiple games

Not sure how much that impacts but i think it is one of the reason ratings are different

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:33 PM

What is killing the Finals is that NY or LA isn't involved. After that, it's the fact that Dallas has a neanderthal as a star.

While the first part of your statement is correct, the latter part doesn't explain why *the neanderthal* is still more interesting than your little wide-eyed timmy. The ratings were still higher than last year and will probably go higher on Sunday and as the series continues.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=televisionNews&storyID=2006-06-09T232253Z_01_N09217994_RTRIDST_0_TELEVISION-NBA-DC.XML

NBA finals give ABC ratings bounce Thursday
Fri Jun 9, 2006 7:23pm ET163

By Cynthia Littleton

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The start of the NBA finals on Thursday had a bit more bounce for ABC than the opening salvo of last year's championship series.

Game 1 between the Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat, which ended in a 90-80 Mavericks victory, averaged 9.3 household rating/15 share in Nielsen Media Research's top 56 "metered" markets. That was a 6% gain over the first game of last year's San Antonio Spurs-Detroit Pistons series and probably enough to give ABC the nightly bragging rights. (Reliable national estimates for the live game coverage were not immediately available.)

Elsewhere in primetime, NBC had some traction with the 10 p.m. premiere of the lottery-winner drama "Windfall," which drew 9 million viewers and 3.3 rating/9 share in adults 18-49, according to preliminary estimates from Nielsen Media Research. "Windfall" moved the needle from its 9:30 p.m. lead-in, a repeat of "My Name is Earl" (6.2 million, 2.6/7).

Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance" (10 million, 4.0/11) continued to perform well in the 18-49 measure, but was still topped in viewers by CBS' "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" repeat (12.4 million, 3.3/9).

CBS' 8 p.m. summer series "Game Show Marathon" (6.8 million, 1.9/6) remained sluggish in the 8 p.m. hour.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

another article about local ratings:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14784217.htm

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:34 PM

Wow. 6%.

Thanks Shaq. Yeah, America gives a damn about a 7 foot tall Kraut. Dumb bitch.

leemajors

06-10-2006, 11:37 PM

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:37 PM

Wow. 6%.

Thanks Shaq.

It's hilarious how you are so f*cking bitter, I love reading all your moronic posts, I read them aloud so eveyone here can get a laugh. Don't worry about ratings, you won't be in the Finals next year. I'm not saying it will be the Mavs but it certainly won't be the Spurs.

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:38 PM

they would probably be even better if they hadn't waited 5 days. the general public doesn't wait with baited breath for the NBA finals.

yeah, ABC and the NBA deference to NBA sucks...i used to like it when the games were on NBC...we'll see how it goes when the turnarounds change to 48 hours

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:38 PM

It's hilarious how you post in here all the fucking time. Nobody gives a damn about your fat ass. Seriously. Just go.

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:40 PM

It's hilarious how you are so f*cking bitter, I love reading all your moronic posts, I read them aloud so eveyone here can get a laugh. Don't worry about ratings, you won't be in the Finals next year. I'm not saying it will be the Mavs but it certainly won't be the Spurs.

Oh no.

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:40 PM

It's hilarious how you post in here all the fucking time. Nobody gives a damn about your fat ass. Seriously. Just go.

I'm not going anywhere. It's funny how you keep posting on threads started by Mavs fan (re: this post) and then request that we leave. hahahahahahaha

leemajors

06-10-2006, 11:40 PM

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:41 PM

I'm not going anywhere. It's funny how you keep posting on threads started by Mavs fan (re: this post) and then request that we leave. hahahahahahaha

Yeah, I guess it's hilarious when I tell you to shut the fuck up. Shouldn't you be fucking your "man"?

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:43 PM

ok pop, RC. pack it in, there's no way the spurs can get to the finals. :depressed

lol, i'm obviously just kidding, i don't have any idea how it will go next year, i expect the spurs will tweak their roster and come back gunning next season but the west is tough...i just like to hate on assholes like sparky who just toss around insults and don't contribute much

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:45 PM

I like it when I piss trolling bitches off.

Shank

06-10-2006, 11:46 PM

Someone call me?

leemajors

06-10-2006, 11:47 PM

wow shank, that is an incredible sig.

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:48 PM

I like it when I piss trolling bitches off.

Why would I be pissed off? I'm in Dallas and I'm going to my second Finals game tomorrow after watching some WC, life is good. I see you like to talk shit all the time, I just saw some of your other puerile posts on some other threads, I should really take you a lot less seriously from now on. Name calling is such a witty way to piss off trolls.

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:50 PM

Wow, going to a Finals game for your favorite team? It's only been 7 years since I did for mine. The 1st time, mind you.

Holmes_Fans

06-10-2006, 11:52 PM

It still got a higher rating than last years finals.

and hockey only pulled a 1.3 ratings, ouch.

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:53 PM

No Shaq and nobody cares.

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:55 PM

Wow, going to a Finals game for your favorite team? It's only been 7 years since I did for mine. The 1st time, mind you.

And? There's always a first time, even for Spurs fans who used to root for the Rockets before their team suddenly got good in '99. What a ridiculous statement, "We were there first so we're better!" Yeah, well your franchise has been around a lot longer, starting out as a Dallas team! First time I went to a Finals game was back in '95, Rockets friend of mine invited me and I liked and still like the Rockets. Took the Spurs 32 years, will take the Mavericks 26 years.

SPARKY

06-10-2006, 11:58 PM

And? There's always a first time, even for Spurs fans who used to root for the Rockets before their team suddenly got good in '99. What a ridiculous statement, "We were there first so we're better!" Yeah, well your franchise has been around a lot longer, as a Dallas team! First time I went to a Finals game was back in '95, Rockets friend of mine invited me and I liked and still like the Rockets.

eh, Spurs fans never cheered for the Rockets. Before I forget, yeah, the Spurs "suddenly got good in '99." That's it.

ponky

06-10-2006, 11:59 PM

eh, Spurs fans never cheered for the Rockets. Before I forget, yeah, the Spurs "suddenly got good in '99." That's it.

That's bullshit. There are shitloads of Spurs fan in Austin and they all cheered for the Rockets in the early 90s. Anyway, just remember, 32 years for the Spurs, 26 years for the Mavericks.

SPARKY

06-11-2006, 12:01 AM

That's bullshit. There are shitloads of Spurs fan in Austin and they all cheered for the Rockets in the early 90s.

Now you cheer for the Mavs. Go figure.

Anyway, just remember, 32 years for the Spurs, 19 years the Mavericks.

Um, the Mavs have been around since '80. Seriously, are you trying to be stupid?

ponky

06-11-2006, 12:05 AM

Now you cheer for the Mavs. Go figure.

I've been cheering for the Mavs since '96, I didn't just jump on the Mavs bandwagon in the 2000s.

Um, the Mavs have been around since '80. Seriously, are you trying to be stupid?

That's not a quote idiot. Regardless, we will get there sooner than your franchise. It's funny to think that the Spurs were once a Dallas team, I'm ashamed of that little fact. Anyway, later hater, I've got to go talk to fans who are still in the playoffs now.

SPARKY

06-11-2006, 12:09 AM

You edited after I pointed out your ignorance.

'Spurs were once a Dallas team'? :lol For someone who wants to bring up history you better review yours.

Yeah, you need to talk to fans who are "still in the playoffs" so you've been hanging out in here every day. What the fuck is your deal, bitch? This isn't therapy. Posting in here won't make you lose weight or make your job any less shittier. Seriously. You post in here like it's a religion. Beyond that, you can't even talk basketball. All I see is 'I hate the Spurs because they won 3 titles before the Mavs.'

ponky

06-11-2006, 12:10 AM

You edited after I pointed out your ignorance.

Yeah, you need to talk to fans who are "still in the playoffs" so you've been hanging out in here every day. What the fuck is your deal, bitch? This isn't therapy. Posting in here won't make you lose weight or make your job any less shittier. Seriously. You post in here like it's a religion. Beyond that, you can't even talk basketball. Just go.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, loser...goodnight, *bitch*

SPARKY

06-11-2006, 12:12 AM

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, loser...goodnight, *bitch*

Run along now you skanky fat bitch.

Mavs_All_the_Way

06-11-2006, 01:07 AM

While the first part of your statement is correct, the latter part doesn't explain why *the neanderthal* is still more interesting than your little wide-eyed timmy. The ratings were still higher than last year and will probably go higher on Sunday and as the series continues.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=televisionNews&storyID=2006-06-09T232253Z_01_N09217994_RTRIDST_0_TELEVISION-NBA-DC.XML

NBA finals give ABC ratings bounce Thursday
Fri Jun 9, 2006 7:23pm ET163

By Cynthia Littleton

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - The start of the NBA finals on Thursday had a bit more bounce for ABC than the opening salvo of last year's championship series.

Game 1 between the Dallas Mavericks and Miami Heat, which ended in a 90-80 Mavericks victory, averaged 9.3 household rating/15 share in Nielsen Media Research's top 56 "metered" markets. That was a 6% gain over the first game of last year's San Antonio Spurs-Detroit Pistons series and probably enough to give ABC the nightly bragging rights. (Reliable national estimates for the live game coverage were not immediately available.)

Elsewhere in primetime, NBC had some traction with the 10 p.m. premiere of the lottery-winner drama "Windfall," which drew 9 million viewers and 3.3 rating/9 share in adults 18-49, according to preliminary estimates from Nielsen Media Research. "Windfall" moved the needle from its 9:30 p.m. lead-in, a repeat of "My Name is Earl" (6.2 million, 2.6/7).

Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance" (10 million, 4.0/11) continued to perform well in the 18-49 measure, but was still topped in viewers by CBS' "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" repeat (12.4 million, 3.3/9).

CBS' 8 p.m. summer series "Game Show Marathon" (6.8 million, 1.9/6) remained sluggish in the 8 p.m. hour.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

another article about local ratings:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14784217.htm

This info is more accurate and updated..

Mavs_All_the_Way

06-11-2006, 01:42 AM

And I like this from the mercury news:

"The national rating for the Mavs-Heat was a 7.8. That's slightly better than last year's 7.2 for the Spurs-Pistons opener, but well behind the Lakers-Pistons two seasons back at 9.8. You think ABC was happy to see the Mavericks eliminate the Spurs? The Spurs in 2003 and 2005 played in the two lowest-rated NBA Finals since the games were moved to prime time. . . . At his news conference on Friday, NBA commissioner David Stern called local television coverage of the Finals, "quite remarkable." Obviously, he has never attended Bill Parcells' Monday news conferences during Cowboys season."

DubMcDub

06-11-2006, 01:50 AM

DubMcDub

06-11-2006, 01:53 AM

'Spurs were once a Dallas team'? :lol For someone who wants to bring up history you better review yours.

"October 1973 - San Antonio Spurs franchise leased by Angelo
Drossos from the ABA Dallas Chapparals and moved
to San Antonio"

Source (http://wwwhttp://www.nba.com/spurs/history/key_dates.html)

....Sparky you are the most consistently owned poster on this entire board. Congratulations.

lovespurs forever

06-11-2006, 03:37 AM

If the game is MAVS vs PIS?
Thanks to the SHARK and WADE.

lovespurs forever

06-11-2006, 03:43 AM

The first rating is true,that's all.

swift_carlos

06-11-2006, 07:41 AM

Dont you people get scared about this? I mean if Stern doesnt like the ratings, does that mean he could officially ban defensive teams from the league to make sure every team average 150 ppg and 300 dunks per game?

SPARKY

06-11-2006, 08:28 AM

"October 1973 - San Antonio Spurs franchise leased by Angelo
Drossos from the ABA Dallas Chapparals and moved
to San Antonio"

Source (http://wwwhttp://www.nba.com/spurs/history/key_dates.html)

Um RubADub, I was aware of the fact that they were the Dallas Chapparals. I was mocking someone who thought the Mavs had only been in existence for 19 years. Try again, kiddo.

Extra Stout

06-11-2006, 08:40 AM

It would have been very difficult for the Spurs to win the NBA championship between 1968 and 1976, given that they were in the ABA.

SPARKY

06-11-2006, 08:52 AM

It would have been very difficult for the Spurs to win the NBA championship between 1968 and 1976, given that they were in the ABA.

True. Funny how SA is disparaged for being able to support the Chaps when Dallas could not. Also slightly humorous that SA had a NBA team four seasons before DFW. Oh well.

GrandeDavid

06-11-2006, 09:32 AM

Dick Bavetta is killing the popularity of the game singlehandedly. Sooner they shitcan his ass(an not give him game 7's to ref) the sooner the NBA will start to regain popularity. WWE isn't as poular as it used to be either.

HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!! I couldn't agree with you more, Whottt is up!!!

Btw, I hope the ratings sink down the f-ing toilet for the entire Finals. I ain't watching, but I'm in Brazil watching the World Cup. Basketball doesn't even exist to me right now with the Cup, Team USA being #4 in the world and the Spurs being out.

Please, fellow Spurs fans, don't watch the Finals. ha ha ha ha

cherylsteele

06-11-2006, 09:56 AM

Well, there is the very obvious fact that football is a team sport.
Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't basketball a team sport too?

Why can't the league market teams then?

leemajors

06-11-2006, 10:10 AM

Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't basketball a team sport too?

Why can't the league market teams then?

the nfl has been marketing its teams over stars for quite a while now, while the nba has marketed stars. it's not that easy to switch marketing strats immediately.

gospursgojas

06-11-2006, 10:17 AM

You can tell the NFL isn't trying to market individuals by just looking at all the celebration rules they created in response to TO's and Chad Johnson's TD dances....

TheTruth

06-11-2006, 10:26 AM

It's probably been said a hundred times in this thread already, but Bob Costas was the best play by play man in any sport.

Aggie Hoopsfan

06-11-2006, 10:55 AM

Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't basketball a team sport too?

Why can't the league market teams then?

That was my whole point. The NFL markets teams, and has the biggest following of any of the pro sports in the U.S., outside of the NCAA Final Four.

Meanwhile, Stern keeps pimping individual players who never make it to the Finals. Then him and his corporate suits sit up in NY and wonder why their ratings suck for the Finals.

There is no Jordan in this league anymore, and the league needs to recognize that and adjust their marketing accordingly.

NBAFan

06-11-2006, 01:19 PM

Didn't read the whole thread.....but the article didn't mention this.
Rating are way up compare to last season final 1st game :) across three major age & gender group. Thats the good news for sponsors and abc. Ofcourse Miami and Dallas are bigger market so thats help also since it has more population.

Trainwreck2100

06-11-2006, 01:22 PM

It's probably been said a hundred times in this thread already, but Bob Costas was the best play by play man in any sport.

He's on Cars, his name is Bob Cutlass.

Also after he called out Stern the last day NBC had NBA I doubt we will ever see him again.

ObiwanGinobili

06-11-2006, 01:28 PM

thats was me watching my name is earl.

fyatuk

06-11-2006, 01:59 PM

Correct me if I am wrong....but isn't basketball a team sport too?

Why can't the league market teams then?

There's one thing Cuban has the right idea on. One thing that feels missing from the NBA recently is true team rivalries. The whole Pistons/Bulls of the past, etc.

Now, nothing has that sort of emotional draw.

In the NFL, that's one of the reasons the Cowboys have such a large national following. 3 of the most famous rivalries in the NFL involve the cowboys.

Marketting teams will give you a hardcore fan base. Marketting individuals gives you casual fans and bandwagoners.

The NBA should continue to market the top stars, but put more effort into marketting teams and rivalries.

DubMcDub

06-11-2006, 02:52 PM

Um RubADub, I was aware of the fact that they were the Dallas Chapparals. I was mocking someone who thought the Mavs had only been in existence for 19 years. Try again, kiddo.

Yeah... but that's not what you said. At all.

Nice attempt at a recovery. You probably should have at least edited your previous post to make it slightly more believable.

And ending your posts with a cute little remark like "Try again, kiddo" really gives you an aura of intelligence :rolleyes. Next time why don't you go with a "Slick one, Ace" or perhaps even a "Good work, governor" :lol.

SPARKY

06-11-2006, 03:02 PM

Yeah... but that's not what you said. At all.

Nice attempt at a recovery. You probably should have at least edited your previous post to make it slightly more believable.

Next time I will point out when I am being sarcastic (perhaps in blue and in italics). I was well aware of the Spurs' origins before it was pointed out again and again during broadcasts of every Spurs' title run since 1999.

This is what happens when you jump in the middle of a conversation you were not a part of and attempt to run a forum that you haven't been a member of.

I'm not going to edit my posts to make up for your inability to comprehend sarcasm.

And ending your posts with a cute little remark like "Try again, kiddo" really gives you an aura of intelligence :rolleyes. Next time why don't you go with a "Slick one, Ace" or perhaps even a "Good work, governor" :lol.

I'll let you worry about that, Deputy Dog. Though I'll give it up to you for being the most boorish and clueless troll in here.

DubMcDub

06-11-2006, 03:10 PM

This is what happens when you jump in the middle of a conversation you were not a part of and attempt to run a forum that you haven't been a member of.

Awww, somebody wants me to leave. :lol :lol:

As for "jumping in on the middle of a conversation", I wasn't aware that the dynamics of an internet message board lent credence to such an idea. Correct me if I'm wrong (hell, I'm sure you'll make a pathetic attempt to correct me even if I'm right), but I was under the impression that the entirety of your "conversation" is instantly available to anyone reading this thread.

Attempting to use the "you just didn't understand the context of our discussion" on a self-contained internet message board thread is ridiculous. It doesn't surprise me that you're trying to invoke that argument, though, given the mental capacity that you've displayed recently.

SPARKY

06-11-2006, 03:16 PM

I don't care if you stay or leave. If you can't comprehend sarcasm that's not my fault. As for your intellect I'd say you have a rather inflated sense of its worth. Your insults mean very little for me and I have no doubt that your life's accomplishments pale in comparison to mine. So feel free to keep the insults coming. They just make me laugh, RubADub.

Extra Stout

06-11-2006, 03:25 PM

Yes, Dubby, Marcus is well aware of the Spurs' history.

Knoxville Spur

06-11-2006, 05:42 PM

Mavs_All_the_Way

06-11-2006, 10:09 PM

Ratings are fine...well, at least now that the Spurs are not playing the Finals...

strangeweather

06-11-2006, 10:15 PM

One obvious problem with the ratings is the scheduling. 9PM ET and every game is on Tues, Thurs, or Sunday. How idiotic is that? First off, there is no west coast team in the series, why the 9 PM start times? And how about 9 PM on a FRIDAY night, when most people don't have to work the next morning? How about a Sunday game with a reasonable start time such as 3-6PM?

If Stern is setting this schedule, which would not surprise me, what a douche bag!
It's set by ABC's scheduling needs, and IIRC, they did the same thing last year.
Also, 9pm EST was the traditional start time for MNF, as well. You get most of prime time on the east coast, and you start at 6pm PST, so it's not while most people on the West Coast are still at work.

Keeping the same start time on Sunday night kind of mystifies me as well.

ChumpDumper

06-11-2006, 10:17 PM

They know 60 Minutes will kick their ass....

leemajors

06-11-2006, 11:02 PM

thats was me watching my name is earl.

me too, i kept flipping to the game at commercials. my brother's gf likes that show, and it was kinda funny.

MissAllThat

06-12-2006, 01:17 AM

Btw, I hope the ratings sink down the f-ing toilet for the entire Finals. I ain't watching, but I'm in Brazil watching the World Cup. Basketball doesn't even exist to me right now with the Cup, Team USA being #4 in the world and the Spurs being out.

Please, fellow Spurs fans, don't watch the Finals. ha ha ha ha

I love Team USA :) I will definitely be watching them tomorrow (or well later today).

As for the problems with the Finals (as a whole), here are some reasons ratings are low:
1. If you're not a fan of the 2 teams chances are its boring. Yes, there might be a few good plays or even some great games. But, unless you just adore basketball its boring.
2. They don't try to bring you tons of cool new commercials like they do with the Superbowl.
3. It can be anywhere from 4 to 7 games. So what if you miss games 1, 2, and maybe even 3. The team that won those three or 2 out of three might lose the series, or even worse, the series may be so boring that its going to be a sweep and be over in 4.
4. There's no Jordan. Granted, this is a stupid reason, but given the obsession that the media, the NBA, and the world as a whole have with Jordan, this is a problem. Several of the NBA Finals commercials still have Jordan in them. Now if I'm a completely clueless ordinary person who doesn't watch basketball on a regular basis, and I saw these commercials and then tuned into the Finals, I'd quickly be disappointed and change the channel.
5. The NBA doesn't do a very good job of marketing the teams that usually make it to the finals. We saw Lebron and Kobe on national TV several times this season, but who honestly thought they'd be in the finals?
6. ABC sucks. Yes, that is all. They might as well have let ESPN do all of the coverage of the finals this year. That would have made more sense. People were used to having a friday night ESPN game during the season, not a Sunday night ABC game. ABC did (and has for the past few years) a crap job of covering the season and even the playoffs. Hardly any of the first few playoff games were on ABC. If they had wanted people to watch, they would have needed for them to get used to tuning into ABC for basketball. This year because of the lack of ABC coverage, people were in the habit of watching basketball on ESPN. The Finals just screwed all of that up.
7. Hubie needs to go away. He's a dinasour. Older than time itself, and guess what? HE'S BORING. I'd rather sit and stare at the wall in an all white room by myself than listen to him.
8. Excessive shots of useless people. Nobody cares to see Eva Longoria's reaction to everything, or Mark Cuban's, Jack Nicholson's. The only thing showing Eva's face is good for is doing cross-promotion with the Finals and Desperate Housewives, but as that show is already getting good ratings, its not that necessary. However, having the Finals as a lead in to DH would be a smart thing. Why you may ask? Because if say the game started at 5:30 and DH normally came on at 8, theres a pretty good chance of the game still being on at 8. Of course at about 7:55 or so, you need to put up some sort of information bar on the screen saying, DH will be on immediately follwing the game. People who normally tune into DH at 8, will flip their tvs on to ABC to see their favorite show, and instead of changing it, they will probably leave it on for the last few minutes so that they don't miss their beloved shows.

dieman8686

06-12-2006, 01:42 AM

As for your intellect I'd say you have a rather inflated sense of its worth. Your insults mean very little for me and I have no doubt that your life's accomplishments pale in comparison to mine. So feel free to keep the insults coming. They just make me laugh, RubADub.
Excuse me for jumping into your "private conversation, but isn't what you said the other way around? Basically, you have ended most of your posts with "bitch" or immature comments to try and overrun people with your so called intellect. I know this is very late, but your posts are always the same, so the late part is overshadowed.

DubMcDub

06-12-2006, 03:04 AM

Excuse me for jumping into your "private conversation, but isn't what you said the other way around? Basically, you have ended most of your posts with "bitch" or immature comments to try and overrun people with your so called intellect. I know this is very late, but your posts are always the same, so the late part is overshadowed.

Yeah, he doesn't quite get it.

That's okay, though, because his "life accomplishments" are definitely much greater than mine or yours.

ChumpDumper

06-12-2006, 03:14 AM

Sparcus is imperious and pompous by nature.

He is also a Spurfan of the first order, so you have to accept it.

I have.

DuncanInYourFace

06-12-2006, 03:51 AM

Your insults mean very little for me and I have no doubt that your life's accomplishments pale in comparison to mine.

What a loser.

1Parker1

06-12-2006, 07:51 AM

Well, when you have an 80 year old man, pale as a ghost, commenting and doing the play by play, I would think ratings wouldn't be that high. :rolleyes

SPARKY

06-12-2006, 08:02 AM

Excuse me for jumping into your "private conversation, but isn't what you said the other way around? Basically, you have ended most of your posts with "bitch" or immature comments to try and overrun people with your so called intellect. I know this is very late, but your posts are always the same, so the late part is overshadowed.

As posting a picture of a Christ figurine garbed in a Mavs jersey in one's sig is indicative of a high degree of personal maturity, obviously.

SPARKY

06-12-2006, 08:06 AM

Sparcus is imperious and pompous by nature.

He is also a Spurfan of the first order, so you have to accept it.

I have.

Nothing like trolling Okies to unite Spurs fans. I thought I saw whottt give Chump a hug last night.

ChumpDumper

06-12-2006, 01:28 PM

Backhanded compliments are the best.

Extra Stout

06-12-2006, 01:31 PM

The final numbers for Game 1 are in: 7.8, up from 7.2 last year.

Early returns on Game 2 show 7.4.

dbestpro

06-12-2006, 02:46 PM

Note: The year of the Zebra is boring. I'd rather watch reruns of Hidalgo.

cherylsteele

06-12-2006, 07:51 PM

That was my whole point. The NFL markets teams, and has the biggest following of any of the pro sports in the U.S., outside of the NCAA Final Four.

Meanwhile, Stern keeps pimping individual players who never make it to the Finals. Then him and his corporate suits sit up in NY and wonder why their ratings suck for the Finals.

There is no Jordan in this league anymore, and the league needs to recognize that and adjust their marketing accordingly.
Sorry Aggie.....I guess I missed your initial point.
I guess we do agree on this.:)

You're right in wondering why they don't market individual teams..IMHO doing it the way the NBA is doing it is a travesty. Just look at the TV rating of recent years.

big3bigD

06-12-2006, 08:23 PM

There is an article on FOXSPORTS.com. right now that is praising the ratings for this year's Finals as being up around 17.5% over 2005.

This thread title is not only inaccurate, but outright false.

Slinkyman

06-12-2006, 08:40 PM

FromWayDowntown

06-12-2006, 08:50 PM

There is an article on FOXSPORTS.com. right now that is praising the ratings for this year's Finals as being up around 17.5% over 2005.

This thread title is not only inaccurate, but outright false.

That the ratings are better this year than last year doesn't mean that the ratings are high. From what I understand, the ratings are still historically low, even though they might be somewhat higher than last year.

This thread title, which refers not to "lower" ratings but to "low" ratings, therefore, is quite accurate.

By the way, to interject a bit of fact into this discussion, if you isolate the television home markets of the teams participating in this year's Finals and compare that number to the home markets of the teams in last year's Finals, the 2006 Finalists have home markets that provide more than 1 million more television homes. (Dallas has 2,336,140 television homes for ratings purposes and Miami has 1,522,960, for a total of 3,859,100; Detroit has 1,936,350 television homes and San Antonio has 760,410 for a total of 2.969,760). Despite having a home market advantage that is that big, the ratings for this year are marginally better than last year in the early stages of the Finals, and nowhere near the ratings at the end of last year's Finals. One could surmise from that fact that the difference in this year is not about the attractiveness of the teams, but is more about sheer numbers.

milkyway21

06-12-2006, 09:02 PM

it would have been a blockbuster if Duncan's Spurs play against ShaQ's Miami:cuss

there's no denying that after MJ-Barkley, MJ-Malone, the Duncan-Shaq is the hottest rivalry in the NBA.

ShaQ loves to play against Duncan & visa versa.

there's still hope though-> Miami try to win game 3.

Extra Stout

06-12-2006, 09:19 PM

it would have been a blockbuster if Duncan's Spurs play against ShaQ's Miami:cuss
Um, no it wouldn't.

Nobody cares about the NBA Finals unless the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, or Bulls are in it.

The first two games are averaging a 7.9, which, while higher than 2005, still is nothing to write home about, and as FWD suggests, is mostly an artifact of the larger markets in this year's Finals, and not a barometer of greater national interest.

big3bigD

06-13-2006, 09:20 AM

That the ratings are better this year than last year doesn't mean that the ratings are high. From what I understand, the ratings are still historically low, even though they might be somewhat higher than last year.

This thread title, which refers not to "lower" ratings but to "low" ratings, therefore, is quite accurate.

By the way, to interject a bit of fact into this discussion, if you isolate the television home markets of the teams participating in this year's Finals and compare that number to the home markets of the teams in last year's Finals, the 2006 Finalists have home markets that provide more than 1 million more television homes. (Dallas has 2,336,140 television homes for ratings purposes and Miami has 1,522,960, for a total of 3,859,100; Detroit has 1,936,350 television homes and San Antonio has 760,410 for a total of 2.969,760). Despite having a home market advantage that is that big, the ratings for this year are marginally better than last year in the early stages of the Finals, and nowhere near the ratings at the end of last year's Finals. One could surmise from that fact that the difference in this year is not about the attractiveness of the teams, but is more about sheer numbers.

Mostly a very nice post.

There is no arguing that these teams represent larger market sizes, but the increase in ratings is 17% through only 2 games. That indicates more national interest, not just a reflection of the larger markets.

Also, this being a Spurs borad, and with the Spurs having been in the Finals in the previous year, the word lower implies a comparisson between the last two seasons, thus making the title not only inaccurate, but outright false.

DarrinS

06-13-2006, 09:33 AM

Mostly a very nice post.

There is no arguing that these teams represent larger market sizes, but the increase in ratings is 17% through only 2 games. That indicates more national interest, not just a reflection of the larger markets.

Also, this being a Spurs borad, and with the Spurs having been in the Finals in the previous year, the word lower implies a comparisson between the last two seasons, thus making the title not only inaccurate, but outright false.

newbie teams

swift_carlos

06-13-2006, 09:42 AM

I rather have the ratings of last year finals and see the Spurs/Pistons put on an epic battle of 7 games. So if the NBA ends up selling 5-6 games thanks to Mavs , Stern will be the loser. :lol

Holmes_Fans

06-13-2006, 09:42 AM

Can someone post the ratings for the SA local market for the finals last year?

FromWayDowntown

06-13-2006, 10:33 AM

Mostly a very nice post.

There is no arguing that these teams represent larger market sizes, but the increase in ratings is 17% through only 2 games. That indicates more national interest, not just a reflection of the larger markets.

It's up 17% from a low number in the first 2 games last year. If I increase a 7.0 rating (roughly the 2005 rating through 2 games -- a very low rating undoubtedly) by 17%, I get something around an 8.2, which would indicate an increase of about 1.5 million television homes. Given the increased market sizes and some additional excitement for 2 first time finalists, it's fairly easy to say that the local markets are largely responsible for the increased ratings.

Also, this being a Spurs borad, and with the Spurs having been in the Finals in the previous year, the word lower implies a comparisson between the last two seasons, thus making the title not only inaccurate, but outright false.

But the title of the thread doesn't use the word "lower" -- it uses the word "low," which is an entirely accurate representation of the ratings numbers.

In the end, I'm not sure why anyone (other than television executives) points to ratings numbers in any argument. I mean, is your point that smaller market teams that apparently don't cause the masses to run to their televisions aren't worthy of competing for championships? Are you trying to say that only teams that foster excitement among the watching public are valid champions? Should popularity be a factor that determines which teams make title runs? I'm honestly curious what point you're trying to make by spouting off ratings numbers and parading about like the NBA will finally be happy with a relatively small ratings increase.

ChumpDumper

06-13-2006, 01:08 PM

t's up 17% from a low number in the first 2 games last year. If I increase a 7.0 rating (roughly the 2005 rating through 2 games -- a very low rating undoubtedly) by 17%, I get something around an 8.2, which would indicate an increase of about 1.5 million television homes. Given the increased market sizes and some additional excitement for 2 first time finalists, it's fairly easy to say that the local markets are largely responsible for the increased ratings.The difference between the combined TV markets for each year is 1,181,940 TV households; there is probably some truth to FWD's post.

Ratings have gone up from shitty to merely awful, and unless Miami does something to at least make it look competitive, they won't get any better.

ObiwanGinobili

06-13-2006, 01:14 PM

Well, when you have an 80 year old man, pale as a ghost, commenting and doing the play by play, I would think ratings wouldn't be that high. :rolleyes

Hey! Skeletor as real big during the 80's!

:lol

angryllama

06-13-2006, 03:58 PM

LEONARD

06-13-2006, 04:06 PM

ABC's presentation is HORRIBLE...certainly doesn't help things...

I wish they were still on TNT...

FromWayDowntown

06-13-2006, 04:10 PM

I dont know if this has already been posted, but the ratings are definately UP from any Spur series in recent history.

NBA finals ratings up from last year
Associated Press
Posted: 19 hours ago

NEW YORK (AP) - Ratings for the first two games of the the NBA finals between Miami and Dallas were up 13 percent for ABC in comparison to last year's championship series with San Antonio and Detroit.

The second game of the series on Sunday night, which Dallas won 99-85, drew an average rating of 8.0 - a 17 percent increase from 2005.
The rating is the percentage of all homes with TVs, whether or not they are in use. Each rating point represents about 1.08 million households.

As I've previously noted, that means that roughly 1 million more households watched on Sunday night than watched Game 2 of last year's series. That number shouldn't be terribly surprising, given that there are more than a million more television homes in Miami and Dallas combined than there are in San Antonio and Detroit combined. Add to that the Shaq and DWade groupies and the domestic number is pretty easy to figure out. An 8.0 is still a pretty crappy number compared to the numbers that NBC used to pull for the Finals, and it's downright miserable compared to the old CBS numbers. But, you're right -- it's better than a Spurs series.

That proves . . . exactly nothing.

temujin

06-13-2006, 04:34 PM

Finals? What finals?
There are no finals.
Spurs2 won in 7 games 3 weeks ago.

temujin

06-13-2006, 04:36 PM

As I've previously noted, that means that roughly 1 million more households watched on Sunday night than watched Game 2 of last year's series. That number shouldn't be terribly surprising, given that there are more than a million more television homes in Miami and Dallas combined than there are in San Antonio and Detroit combined. Add to that the Shaq and DWade groupies and the domestic number is pretty easy to figure out. An 8.0 is still a pretty crappy number compared to the numbers that NBC used to pull for the Finals, and it's downright miserable compared to the old CBS numbers. But, you're right -- it's better than a Spurs series.

That proves . . . exactly nothing.

Plus millions more watching from Germany their star.
They are so passionate about Basketball.
Expecially these days with the World Cup on hand.

temujin

06-13-2006, 04:41 PM

I rather have the ratings of last year finals and see the Spurs/Pistons put on an epic battle of 7 games. So if the NBA ends up selling 5-6 games thanks to Mavs , Stern will be the loser. :lol

He'll send the Marvelous Three of Game3 for Game3 in Miami.

They will take care of getting to Game5.

The 3G3 Specialists, as they are known.

Darrin

06-13-2006, 06:45 PM

Slinkyman

06-13-2006, 06:47 PM

ABC's presentation is HORRIBLE...certainly doesn't help things...

I wish they were still on TNT...

at least the got rid of al michaels

FromWayDowntown

06-13-2006, 06:56 PM

Can you post the raw numbers of the potential televison homes in Dallas, Miami, Detroit, and San Antonio?

2,336,140 - Dallas
1,522,960 - Miami

1,936,350 - Detroit (qualifier -- this is the 2005-06 number)
760,410 - San Antonio (same qualifier)

dbestpro

06-14-2006, 08:07 AM

The Rio Grande Valley is an extension of support for the Spurs. With an additional population over 1 million the market should be much larger.

Extra Stout

06-14-2006, 08:28 AM

The Rio Grande Valley is an extension of support for the Spurs. With an additional population over 1 million the market should be much larger.
Why do people bother with these arguments? Are Dallas and Miami surrounded by salt desert?

MadDog73

06-14-2006, 08:49 AM

I'm guessing Game 4 will have higher ratings now... especially with all the Wade loving going on.

leemajors

06-14-2006, 09:00 AM

ABC's presentation is HORRIBLE...certainly doesn't help things...

I wish they were still on TNT...

they should have brought back will smith to perform "miami" in miami. i stll don't know why he performed last year before the first game of the finals.

fyatuk

06-14-2006, 10:05 AM

The Rio Grande Valley is an extension of support for the Spurs. With an additional population over 1 million the market should be much larger.

Nope, those were DMA numbers, which includes most of the RGV for SA, the entire east coast of south florida for Miami (but not the west coast), etc.

It does include Austin, Victoria, or Corpus Christi DMAs in the SA numbers.

If you want to restrict it to METRO only, SA takes the biggest hit, dropping to about 450k TV homes, since our DMA is the least urbanized of the 4.

fyatuk

06-14-2006, 10:08 AM

Why do people bother with these arguments? Are Dallas and Miami surrounded by salt desert?

It was a bad point to begin with since the RGV is included in the SA numbers. NBA also doesn't do regional marketting very well, so really anything outside of the home METRO is not all that important when looking at these numbers.

Of course the vast majority of Dallas, Detroit, and Miami DMA's are highly urbanized (in terms of population), while only a little over half of SA's is.

FromWayDowntown

06-14-2006, 10:33 AM

Nope, those were DMA numbers, which includes most of the RGV for SA, the entire east coast of south florida for Miami (but not the west coast), etc.

It does include Austin, Victoria, or Corpus Christi DMAs in the SA numbers.

If you want to restrict it to METRO only, SA takes the biggest hit, dropping to about 450k TV homes, since our DMA is the least urbanized of the 4.

If you're talking about the numbers I posted, your statement is incorrect. I got my numbers from a listing of 220 or so television markets across the country. That list differentiates San Antonio from Austin, the Valley, and Corpus Christi -- those are 4 distinct television markets on the list. The San Antonio number isn't necessarily San Antonio metro, but it's basically Bexar and the immediately adjacent counties.

Here's a link (http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html) to the Nielsen list.

If you scan the list Austin is the 53rd market (589,360 television homes); the Valley is 92nd (318,800); and Corpus Christi is 129th (192,380). They are, however, all distinct and separate markets from San Antonio.

The Miami number is Miami + Fort Lauderdale.

fyatuk

06-14-2006, 10:43 AM

If you're talking about the numbers I posted, your statement is incorrect. I got my numbers from a listing of 220 or so television markets across the country. That list differentiates San Antonio from Austin, the Valley, and Corpus Christi -- those are 4 distinct television markets on the list. The San Antonio number isn't necessarily San Antonio metro, but it's basically Bexar and the immediately adjacent counties.

The Miami number is Miami + Fort Lauderdale.

Sorry, misstatement. I meant "does not", and forgot to type in the "not".

A lot of the "market" that people from SA claims is different DMA's. SA, Austin, Laredo, Victoria, Corpus, and sometimes Brownsville are all claimed often by SA people, even though the relevance of them is quite debateable.

The SA television market is huge, space wise, and includes much of the rio grande valley. From the Pecos to the Laredo area, anyway.

Here's the DMA map: http://www.truckads.com/licensed_affiliates1.asp
And the current DMA sizes: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

As of 2003, SA Metro only had about 430k household units in it, hence my estimate of no more than 450k TV homes in the metro itself.

Extra Stout

06-14-2006, 02:42 PM

The SA television market is huge, space wise, and includes much of the rio grande valley. From the Pecos to the Laredo area, anyway.

Aah, there's some of the confusion. You're taking the RGV to be the entire border, whereas a lot of people consider the term RGV to refer to just the McAllen-Harlingen-Brownsville metropolitan area.

ChumpDumper

06-14-2006, 02:45 PM

Billboards on trucks <> televisions.

Seriously -- TruckAds?

MissAllThat

06-14-2006, 03:07 PM

In the end, I'm not sure why anyone (other than television executives) points to ratings numbers in any argument. I mean, is your point that smaller market teams that apparently don't cause the masses to run to their televisions aren't worthy of competing for championships? Are you trying to say that only teams that foster excitement among the watching public are valid champions? Should popularity be a factor that determines which teams make title runs? I'm honestly curious what point you're trying to make by spouting off ratings numbers and parading about like the NBA will finally be happy with a relatively small ratings increase.

The ratings are important in relation to advertisers. Advertisers will pay more money for higher ratings. And if the advertisers are paying the network more money to advertise, the networks will be willing to pay more money to the league for broadcast rights. That's the only reason they matter. So they're a big deal to the people at ABC and Stern. For fans to use them in arguments is quite stupid. It doesn't mean better basketball was played or that the games were more interesting.

As for the current ratings being up 17%. It is mainly due to the fact that the 2 cities playing have a bigger market. The ratings since Jordan retired have been in about the 6-10% range. Granted, some where a couple points higher than others, but either way, thats still a pretty horrible rating. The only people watching the Finals nowadays are the hardcore fans who watch everything, and the fans of the 2 teams. That's the reason the #s only jump up or down a little bit. The casual fan just isn't watching, not this series, and not last years. The only hope for a casual fan watching was last year's game 7 because that's what casual fans like to watch, but even then I'm sure the ratings were nowhere near what they would have been if ABC didn't suck.

BTW another important thing to consider in ratings talk is the share. Does anyone know that for the 2 games?

MissAllThat

06-14-2006, 03:13 PM

Aah, there's some of the confusion. You're taking the RGV to be the entire border, whereas a lot of people consider the term RGV to refer to just the McAllen-Harlingen-Brownsville metropolitan area.

Just to clarify for everyone, the RGV only includes Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy, Cameron county. Laredo is in Webb county. It's not in the valley, not even right next to the valley. If you wish to include Laredo, you can use the 956 area code as your validation and say that the Spurs market includes people living in the 956 area, but that is all. People from Laredo do not wish to be told they're from the valley, and people in the valley don't claim Laredo as part of them.

FromWayDowntown

06-14-2006, 03:53 PM

The ratings are important in relation to advertisers. Advertisers will pay more money for higher ratings. And if the advertisers are paying the network more money to advertise, the networks will be willing to pay more money to the league for broadcast rights. That's the only reason they matter. So they're a big deal to the people at ABC and Stern. For fans to use them in arguments is quite stupid. It doesn't mean better basketball was played or that the games were more interesting.

I'm perfectly aware of that. I have no idea why fans throw ratings at one another in arguments, though. Unless your argument is that ratings should dictate which teams will compete for titles -- an argument that strikes me as completely ridiculous -- ratings have absolutely nothing to do with what takes place on the court, which is what ultimately matters to fans.

As for the rest of your points, I think my previous posts will demonstrate that we agree.

birdy219

06-14-2006, 03:53 PM

I haven't watched 5 minutes of this series. :sleep I hoped that it would be a sweep either way. :madrun I wanted Stern's rigged finals to be a flop so that MAYBE teams that earn their way to the finals will get there. I hoped that he had learned his lesson in 2004 with the 5 game sweep of his beloved Lakers, but I guess not. Isn't it ironic that the Mavs only shot 50 free throws against us? Has Dirk suddenly become an average player now and not a superstar? All of the other playoff series had a relatively normal amount of free throws between the two teams (50-60). Coincidence.............I think NOT!!!!! :soapbox: Who cares about the ratings? I just want this series....OVER!!!!! :grim: :td