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

[Man In Black]

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

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

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

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

Tons of articles talk about the Jordan Effect:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DMC]

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

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

NY was boring because Ewing was so ing ugly. Other than Shaq, teams with dominant centers and mediocre guards were boring teams. People with dominant guards and average centers were more exciting, because post play isn't exciting unless it's Shaq pulling down the backboard, and even then the Kobe/Shaq rivalry fueled much of the excitement.

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

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

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

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

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

[Kai]

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

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

[da_suns_fan]

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

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

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

Tons of articles talk about the Jordan Effect:

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

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

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

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

[Kai]

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

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

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

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

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

[da_suns_fan]

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


Does this "Jordan Effect" not "count"?

[DMC]

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

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

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

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

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

[DMC]

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


Does this "Jordan Effect" not "count"?

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

[da_suns_fan]

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

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

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

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

[Kai]

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


Does this "Jordan Effect" not "count"?

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

[Dunc n Dave]

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

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

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

[DMC]

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

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

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

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

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

[da_suns_fan]

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

Sure.

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

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

You said yourself:

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

[da_suns_fan]

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

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

Youre kidding, right?

[da_suns_fan]

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

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

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

Well said.

[Kai]

I think we all know why people watched:



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

[da_suns_fan]

I think we all know why people watched:



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

I agree completely.

[DMC]

Youre kidding, right?

No, show the quote.

[da_suns_fan]

No, show the quote.

Heres a good thread from last month:

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

[Man In Black]

Sure.

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

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

You said yourself:

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

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

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

[DMC]

Heres a good thread from last month:

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

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

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

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

Strawmen don't make good opponents.

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

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

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

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

[DMC]

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

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

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

Jordan's effect on the NBA is still being seen today.

[Man In Black]

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

Small Market San Antonio

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

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

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

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

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

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

[da_suns_fan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[da_suns_fan]

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

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

Small Market San Antonio
.

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