Reply With Quote
If you think so, go the general board. I started a new thread for us there.
btw - thats not what it says.
Damn man...I almost feel sorry for you.
Why have a lead in that says Jordan came back March 19, 1995, say that it's the highest rated regular season rated game of all time(It's because he came back) and then say that the Finals rating went up?
It meant that THAT YEAR plus the 3 following years. IT MEANS THAT THE 95 FINALS HAD AN INCREASE BECAUSE JORDAN CAME BACK TO THE NBA.
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you? You've lost this one...you're just too pig headed to accept the defeat.
If you think so, go the general board. I started a new thread for us there.
btw - thats not what it says.
You also have to consider what else there is to watch now, what other ways a person can keep up with the game without watching it on the specific channel, and TiVo..
I just realized you dont understand what "block" means in this context.
I use the term freely as I have a masters in engineering, but obviously youre not familiar judging by the quote above.
Here's wikipedia's definition: In the statistical theory of the design of experiments, blocking is the arranging of experimental units in groups (blocks) that are similar to one another. Typically, a blocking factor is a source of variability that is not of primary interest to the experimenter. An example of a blocking factor might be the sex of a patient; by blocking on sex, this source of variability is controlled for, thus leading to greater accuracy.
You still might not get what this means.
If Orlando has played Phoenix (I wish) in 95, then we couldnt really compare Orlando vs New York. They would have played different opponents and we wouldnt be able to tell what ratings were for Orlando/New York and what ratings came from their opponent.
But since they both played Houston, their opponent is "blocked" and this source of variability is controlled.
That is, what ever ratings Houston brought in were probably very similar for 94 and 95.
It's not the Spurs fault it's this reality show mtv world. We don't have rappers and rapist(screw you neal didn't do it) or silly beards and loud mouth punk players that's why people are not interested.
louis, go away. Your shtick is old and tired.
You can't really say that. It's a completely different season and there are external factors at play. Common opponent alone doesn't mean block like you say it is.But since they both played Houston, their opponent is "blocked" and this source of variability is controlled.
Why is it that the NBA can get an MIT to complete a study on Superstar Effect in the NBA to prove and quantify a dollar effect and ratings for both the superstar's team AND OTHERS, but still make you think that your theory supersedes that all?
It doesn't. Just because they have a common opponent doesn't block and no...the variability isn't controlled at all.
Jordan didn't play the entire 1993-1994 season at all. When he returned in March of 1995, his 1st game back....that game is the biggest ratings for a regular season game of all time. Of all time...now that's the constant.
Explain why this proof cannot be projected on the effect for the playoffs.
And yes, I can read. It's just that you want it to say exactly that his return propelled the playoffs and the Finals. It infers that, but you get hung up on the part that says the Bulls participated in the following three finals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/sp...al-appeal.html
The San Antonio Spurs were ratings flops when they won the 2003, 2005 and 2007 N.B.A. les. The Spurs were great, maybe dynastic. But they recorded the three lowest-rated N.B.A. finals since at least 1974 when they beat the Nets, the Pistons and the Cavaliers, the least-watched with an average of 9.3 million viewers over four games.
Blame the size of the Spurs’ market, the fourth smallest in the league. Blame the Spurs’ nearly mistake-free, unspectacular style and the middling attractiveness of their opponents. Or blame Tim Duncan’s refusal to cede his bank-shooting efficiency for Madison Avenue bankability.
If the best-of-seven series is compe ive, and no team appears headed for a sweep, the Thunder may find the type of broad audience the Spurs could not. The Thunder, led by Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, play a dynamic, dunk-heavy offense that can attract casual sports fans.“Durant has the ‘it’ factor,” said ABC’s Mike Breen, who will call the N.B.A. finals with Jeff Van Gundy. “He’s got charisma and he’s the humble superstar.” Still, he said: “I honestly never understood the lack of interest in San Antonio. Duncan wasn’t one of the flashiest, but one of the greatest.” And referring to Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, he said, “Manu and Tony were dynamic, exciting players to watch.”
Last edited by Man In Black; 06-16-2012 at 09:06 PM.
What the Jordan Effect has meant for the NBA is a far trickier question, but fortunately we can call on some erudition here, in the persons of two respected economists, professor Jerry A. Hausman of MIT and Gregory K. Leonard, director of the consulting firm Cambridge Economics. Last year they reported the findings of an exhaustive study designed to determine the economic value of superstars to the league--including, of course, Jordan.
The research duo's econometric analysis, published in the Journal of Labor Economics, painstakingly charted and analyzed the league's television ratings and attendance records, controlling for such factors as the time and day of the telecasts, and the quality of the opponent. For their Jordan calculations, they obtained the reported gate receipts for every team and compared revenues generated when the Bulls came to town with the teams' average gate vs. other opponents. For licensed products, they used industry estimates that Jordan and the Bulls accounted for almost half of all gross retail sales, then separated the portion of sales attributed to Jordan and not the rest of the team by using a formula you have no desire to know (trust us). What did they learn?
Basically, that Jordan is the NBA's Pied Piper--he puts fannies in the seats and in front of the tube, and drags them into stores around the world. The study showed that Jordan generated $53.2 million for the league during the 1991-92 season.
I don't care about the larger point you're trying to make, but to this specific point -- Houston had way more hype in '95 than in '94.
They were the defending champions and they had brought in Drexler (best SG not named Michael Jordan), but they had an utterly ty regular season. It looked like they were going to have a similarly ty postseason. They went down 2-1 in the 5-game first round against Utah, then won both elimination games to move on. In the second round, they went down 2-0 and 3-1 against Phoenix before battling back by winning 3 straight elimination games en route to a series win. Phoenix was a major name opponent because of Barkley and because they'd gone to the '93 Finals, and by the time that series was over, there was huge buzz about the Rockets.
Then they flattened David Robinson in the MVP series in the conference finals (), which increased the hype to deafening levels going into the NBA Finals vs. Shaq and Penny.
As a result of all this, Houston brought a vastly different following to the '95 finals than they had brought in '94.
As much as it pains me to say it, Houston eliminated the Suns in 94 after losing the first two games at home. If they had any buzz in 95 from beating the Suns, then they had it in 94 as well.
wrong.
They're playing the Miami Heat, the most watched team in the last 2 years.
Spurs low rated Finals were against: New Jersey Nets (low rated team), Detroit Pistons (low rated team), and the Cleveland Cavs (low rated team). To make matters worse, the Nets and Pistons were making return trips to the Finals after the previous year, so there was less interest to see each team in the Finals. The Cavs on the other hand, were an underdog team that really didn't belong, and were heavily favored to get destroyed by the vastly superior Spurs team of 2007. . .with many experts predicting sweeps, or at best a 5 game series.
When the Spurs played the New York Knicks, their finals was literally the 4th highlest rated finals since Jordan retired, only 0.3, 0.8, and 0.2 behind three of four the Shaq/Kobe Lakers finals.
It's not just about SA, you have to put blame on their opponents as well. Had the Thunder played the Cavs, Pistons, or Nets, their ratings would clearly be lower.
Besides, it isn't like we didn't expect this Finals to get ratings. They're the "chosen teams" this year. The ones the NBA has been marketing harder than every other team in the league for the last 2 seasons.
To be fair, if the Thunder faced Boston, we'd be watching a snooze-fest.
But in '95 they were doing it after starting the season with super-high expectations (after winning the le and landing Drexler), after which they faced a whole season of "What's Wrong with the Rockets?" stories. Then the Suns series was a rematch of a classic, and they dug themselves a huge 3-1 hole before recovering to win it.
In '94 it was a classic series. In '95 it was built on top of the intersection of multiple major NBA storylines (rematch!, can Chuck finally get over the hump?, struggling defending champs, can the Rockets recover from their regular season problems?, can they come back in the clutch again?, can they be the first team since '81 to come back from a 3-1 deficit?), and as a result, it drew far more attention the second time around.
you ers stole the sonics. that team will never be yours. thieves.
41 years in Seattle and in 3 years you think that team is yours..... off.
...and the only reason that stern let you guys in so fast was try an erase the memory.....but it ain't gonna happen.
You would think a town that had 168 people killed by a tragic event would know what its like to have its heart ripped out.
YOU SUCK.
You think losing a ing basketball team is remotely comparable to a terrorist bombing?
you. You have no idea what the you're talking about.
Plus everybody started singing Like Mike, if I can be like Mike again...because Mike came back.
Last edited by Man In Black; 06-17-2012 at 01:59 AM.
I do not consider OKC a small market team. They appeal to the entire midwest. For Spurs its tough to crack all of Texas with Dallas and Houston around.
But the NBA Finals ratings doesn't surprise me. This is why Stern and his goons helped the Thunder beat the Spurs.
I do not consider OKC a small market team. They appeal to the entire midwest. For Spurs its tough to crack all of Texas with Dallas and Houston around.
But the NBA Finals ratings doesn't surprise me. This is why Stern and his goons helped the Thunder beat the Spurs.
Not true. The Spurs have played non attractive basketball during the Pop years. seldom did they have the athletes that could run a fast break, instead stressing low scoring and defense.
Even today they don't run much but have superior passing and ball movement and great perimeter shooters from 3. That type of play doesn't hold up in the playoffs.
True, but it did get them far this year and a 2-0 lead in the WCF, it was almost enough! I miss the D and stops though and execution down the stretch which they had before, that is gone it seems.
Not sure what the point of this thread is. People thought the Spurs were boring in their trophy quests. Why would anyone not a ing degenerate pussy care?
I don't think this has anything to do with market size, it's all about players. Kevin Durant is insanely popular nationwide. Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker are not.
Just let the Suns fan have his perceived victory on this message board already.... Phonics Nones! Ratings champs!
Hang a banner and let it go already.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
