Reply With Quote
Umm..okay.
How bout 2003? Duncan was MVP THAT year and they set worst finals rating of all time in the finals against the Nets (until they broke their own record in 2007).
Keep bringing the excuses, I'll keep shooting them down.
Why didnt Cleveland's first finals "rodeo" draw interest?
ITs not like they were missing star power.
Likewise, the biggest Finals ratings of all time was the Bulls' SIXTH time to the finals and second straight finals against the Jazz.
In fact, the Bulls' first trip to the finals against the Lakers was one of their lowest rated appearances (Depsite the larget media markets).
Umm..okay.
How bout 2003? Duncan was MVP THAT year and they set worst finals rating of all time in the finals against the Nets (until they broke their own record in 2007).
Keep bringing the excuses, I'll keep shooting them down.
Keep obsessing over the Spurs, I'll keep laughing at you.Keep bringing the excuses, I'll keep shooting them down.
Tail between your legs...and you keep moving the in' goalpost.
Again...Market Size Matters. In Addition having Media Friendly Stars Matter, If they are American Born, then that's all the better. When you have all 3...you have the Holy Grail for American Network TV and Q Ratings.
For OKC, they are in a small market. But they have 3 marketable stars who are American Born.It's their first go around and then there is the hate factor. Miami has hate factor. The Decision, the Rock Concert, the proclamation for 7 les. It's the same thing for floyd mayweather. Some people buy his fights hoping they will see him lose...REALITY.
You claim Utah was the draw in 1998. WTF? The fact is, Jordan's Bulls were the A-side attraction. Going into the season, the NBA let it be known that this was effectively the last season that Phil Jackson was going to coach there, that Michael was likely to retire, and that this was the Bull's last hurrah. That's why they drew such a large TV viewership. You get that don't you?
For the Spurs, they too are in a small market, they have stars but they are all listed as International. Tim's American but from the US Virgin Islands. Parker is French, Ginobili an Argentinian, but they don't allow themselves to become household names because the organization prefers for them to be low-key. They'll grant interviews but you won't see them playing any of their commercials in a national rotation. That's intended because all they care about is winning basketball. And it's worked out pretty well for them. It doesn't make for good ratings.
They did pretty well when they played Detroit.2 Solid teams playing basketall going the full 7 games got 12.5 million viewers.
It worked out well when they played New York for their 1st le. New York Metro plus the 1st le for a league with no Jordan. That year they got 16 million viewers.
The New Jersey Ratings were due to people not tuning in because the LAL could not CUATROW. The Cleveland ratings were due to people knowing that the Spurs were about to lay the beatdown on young LBJ, which they did to the tune of 4-0. No intrigue whatsoever plus since the National Media keeps portraying the Spurs as boring, casual fan viewership is affected. if Durant and Westbrook were teammates with TD, then perhaps the national media would give them more attention. But they're not...doesn't matter. Spurs still have 4 les. Is there an NBA Ratings Larry O'Brien Tropy?
Okay wasn't it you who said this?
It's Jordan...I mean man...can you read a graph?
Then you claim this:No...The Orlando Magic wasn't the draw you claim they were. If they were as big as you say, then why did Shaq choose to leave for Tinseltown? Since they were, as you say, a bigger national draw?Just to be CLEAR, my theory is this: The Orlando Magic were a bigger national draw in 1995 than the Knicks were in 1994 and this is why 1995 had a bigger rating than 1994 (even though both finals were against the Rockets).
About the only thing you got right out of your whole deal...except it wasn't you. It was me and the rest of the TV Viewership as reported by Nielsen Media.Youre claiming that none of this matters and the only reason ratings went down in 94 and then back up in 95 is because Jordan was out of the league in 94 and back in 95.
Check the graph. You can read one right?
94 had around 17 million viewers, 95 with a Jordan lead-in, they had an uptick to over 20 million. That extra 3 million was prompted by the return of Jordan to the Eastern Conference Finals. If you can't realize that...then you are incredibly dense. it...you're dense.
Since Jordan left, even with a star-laden league, the NBA hasn't sniffed 20 million viewers since for any Finals played. Every year he played in the playoffs, which mostly resulted in a finals appearance. Viewership is over 20 Million. The one year 1994, he isn't in the NBA at all. It dropped to 17 Million.
What's so hard to understand about that? Casual fan moves the extra 3million. Casual fan likes Jordan and wants to watch him play. Casual fan sees him in the Eastern Conference Finals and sees him lose, but is left with a decent Hakeem-Shaq matchup...so they stick around.
It's like talking to a pre-schooler. You need to go buy hooked-on-phonics suns fan.
You can read a graph right? Him not being around anymore is the reason the NBA keeps trying to give a player the le of the Next Jordan. Because without one, the NBA keeps missing the 20M viewership mark. It's obvious that Bean Bryant ain't Jordan, even with the Celtics as the opponent, 2 big markets, they didn't sniff 20. They hit 14.9 Mill. That's less than the 99 Spurs.
It's clear that OP will never get over losing to the Spurs when it really mattered. At least you lost to the champs. You should feel grateful.
This is how you look right now Suns fan.
The Jordan Effect
Because Shaq wanted to be in films.
Do you even REALIZE that what you are claiming is that
A) Market sizes "Matter"
B) Orlando (small market) got three million more viewers in the 95 finals than New York (largest market) did in 94 finals because Jordan played in the Eastern Conference finals in 95.
If Jordan's presence in the playoffs is enough to compensate (And then some) for Orlando's small market size, then SURELY you must admit that market sizes dont matter!!!
Do you understand?!! You cant have both!
You cant say "market sizes matter BUT Jordan's playoff presence can compensate for an Orlando/New York market size discrepancy even when he's not in the finals"
Thats not a "Jordan effect". Thats just stupid.
Game. Set. Match.
Because the media and casual fans wrote off their chances before it even started.
And Lebron despite being the talent that he was, wasn't a ratings draw until he went decision/pep rally on everybody.
Anyhow, I don't care who else watched the '07 finals. I saw it, Spurs won. Also saw the '07 WC Semifinals too.
Wow, Suns fan is still reeling from all defeats back in the day.
Give it up, its been years, you're a grown man.
They do...did you ever answer the Jeremy Lin question if he did that while playing in Milwaukee, would the media exposure be EXACTLY THE SAME?
That time, Orlando got the benefit of being the team to knock out #45 Michael Jordan. Casual fan and NBA fan alike stuck around to see if Shaq's team could win the le OR if Houston could repeat. Impetus for sticking around. Again....if it was New York playing again, AFTER beating #45, then that matchup would have been higher than Orlando....get that? NO YOU DON'T CAUSE YOU'RE A IN' IDIOT.B) Orlando (small market) got three million more viewers in the 95 finals than New York (largest market) did in 94 finals because Jordan played in the Eastern Conference finals in 95.
Market sizes matter. That's why Household counts are quantified and that's why they have a ratings system.If Jordan's presence in the playoffs is enough to compensate (And then some) for Orlando's small market size, then SURELY you must admit that market sizes dont matter!!!
A minor-league star like Jeremy Lin was White Hot in New York. If he played in Milwaukee, then what? WAY LESS PUB. You get that right? No you don't because you're a in' idiot.
You can have a major league star in a huge tv market. That alone makes for great ratings especially if you're as transcendental as Jordan.Do you understand?!! You cant have both!
I just did and I tried to re-explain it to you again...you're just that stupid.You cant say "market sizes matter BUT Jordan's playoff presence can compensate for an Orlando/New York market size discrepancy even when he's not in the finals"
The Jordan effect is still going on, but in today's NBA, it shows that since he isn't there, the ratings suffer in a negative term. There hasn't been anyone that is capable of being as transcendental as him...hence the lower ratings since he left. That is the Jordan effect as it lingers.Thats not a "Jordan effect". Thats just stupid.
Goes to the Man In Black...Thanks to you for being a stupid .Game. Set. Match.
3 factors for TV ratings in the USA when it comes to NBA.
Market Size 1st
Media-Friendly Marketable Superstar 2nd
American Born 3rd
OKC has 2 of those factors in their favor. As does Miami.
San Antonio has none of those factors when it comes to their team. NONE and Pop doesn't give a .
Market size is a boost for sure, but it ain't the end all be all, but it's still important. Chicago being top 3 DMA or Designated Media Area didn't hurt the Bulls run during Jordan.
Chicago #3
Jordan-MediaGod
American Born-North Carolina and 2 time Gold Medalist who played at University of North Carolina. That's the Holy Grail.
Dallas #5
Nowitzki-Media Friendly
Not American.
OKC #45
Durant-Media Friendly Superstar
American Born
NYC #1
Jeremy Lin-Media-Friendly Minor Star
American Born
For 3 weeks, he was all the NBA talked about. Again, if he played exactly the same way in Milwaukee...way less pub.
2 of 3 helps a lot. 3 of 3 = Holy Grail.
It's amazing you disregard this tidbit of info from the Nielsen link:
Are you tired of not getting it yet?Marketed far more on the power of individual stars than any other US team sport, NBA Basketball suffers the most when it lacks those charismatic stars in postseason play.
I see the fishin's been good.
Everything else you said was jibberish and off-subject (American name etc) so Im just going to quote this.That time, Orlando got the benefit of being the team to knock out #45 Michael Jordan. Casual fan and NBA fan alike stuck around to see if Shaq's team could win the le OR if Houston could repeat. Impetus for sticking around. Again....if it was New York playing again, AFTER beating #45, then that matchup would have been higher than Orlando....get that? NO YOU DON'T CAUSE YOU'RE A IN' IDIOT.
What you just said proves my point.
In spite of the fact that Orlando is a small market size:
"Casual fan and NBA fan alike stuck around to see if Shaq's team could win the le OR if Houston could repeat."
So why is it that "casual fans" never stuck around to watch the Spurs play in the finals?
What you just said proves that teams in small market sizes are capable of being exposed to "casual fans".
Why is this? Because the NBA is on national TV on four different channels almost every week. Regardless of market size, you can get plenty of exposure if your team is exciting (just ask the freaking THUNDER). People arent seeing the Thunder for the first time in the finals. Every single one of their playoff games has been on national TV.
Likewise, the Spurs have had a plethera of national tv appearances over the last decade. They cant blame low ratings due to "lack of exposure".
Your "Jordan effect when hes not even in the finals" deserves ZERO more discussion. You have failed to convince anybody, not just me. If you dont believe me, ask one of your fellow Spurs fans. Or I'll do it for you:
SPURS FANS: WHY DID THE 95 FINALS HAVE MORE VIEWERS THAN THE 94 FINALS?
Lets see what their answer is.
How the does spursfan get trolled by sunsfan so easily?
LMAO every pick of the major three (Durant, Westbrook, Harden) were lottery picks from being awful. Aside from Ibaka there really isn't a major exception of a starter that isn't a lottery pick. The Spurs have had one lottery pick in 15 years. Tim Duncan.
League driven by superstars +
Spurs having the most boring superstar to ever play the game
= Low ratings.
Because this has been the Spurs fan excuse of choice for the past decade and OKC just destroyed it.How the does spursfan get trolled by sunsfan so easily?
How does this clown get 5 pages of responses and good kids with good threads barely get 5 responses?
Who gives a how low the ratings are for the Spurs? And who makes excuses for it? I'm pretty sure the answer to both questions is "nobody," but maybe someone has a better answer.
no one give a bout dem spurs, when they in da finals I ain't watch dat cuz they boring as kkk!!!
1-Small MarketSo why is it that "casual fans" never stuck around to watch the Spurs play in the finals?
2-Stars aren't media friendly marketable intentionally.
3-Not American Born.
Don't agree? Let TP tell you himself. Tony Parker explains it best.
http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba...-that-respect/
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...-conversation/TP:I always say if we did what we did in New York, we’d be gods right now.’ ‘I think the fact that me and Manu are international players, I don’t think we get the same respect. Because we’re not from America, I think that’s why we’re not considered up there with the Bostons, or the Lakers or Chicago.’
Do you get it now or not dumbass? Market size matters. TP knows it. However, like him....we realize that ratings does not equal championships.Parker understands the media dynamic in the NBA. Eighteen months ago, when the NBA-loving world had gone gaga about the Heat’s new Big Three, he pondered how the Spurs’ Big Three — Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Parker — would be perceived had they won three les together in a major media market.
“I always say if we did what we did in New York or Chicago, we’d be gods right now,” he said.
You wouldn't know....your team hasn't won one....ever.
OK.
Your thread still reeks of butt-hurt though.
I gotta say, Suns fan seems like more of a Spurs fan than all of you right now. You should all be ashamed of yourselves as Spurs fans
No doubt in my mind that if tp and manu played in new york, they'd be gods here. Don't know if i would say the same about Tim.
Excuse for what?
Typical momentary sports fan doesn't get excited about fundamentally flawless play. He gets excited about superstars he can pretend to be in the video game he plays.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
