Reply With Quote
http://hoopshype.com/commercials.htm
Manu Ginobili is number five in "number of commercials".
Tim Duncan is number eight.
Tony Parker is 14.
WHat the is "HEB"?
......and
When you see a commercial by the NBA showing all the teams playing, doing things, passing the ball to each other, even the big head on the stage playing as a band thing, the Spurs are almost con uously absent other than one of them being in the very back. During Spurs games, they are absent from the BVNA NBA commercials. The team that has the best winning record in professional sports in the past 10 years gets no play.
Like politics, no air time means no votes/viewers aka no outside interest.
Cause and effect probably, but there it is.
http://hoopshype.com/commercials.htm
Manu Ginobili is number five in "number of commercials".
Tim Duncan is number eight.
Tony Parker is 14.
WHat the is "HEB"?
Ex post facto bro
DMC: You wanted a quote. There it is, bro. Theres ten years of this stuff on this site.
You need to show me why you started down this path, as if it's a standing paradigm that the Spurs have low ratings because they are in a small market.
You are basically begging the question.
Also, just because you can show an instance where it appears that the small market aspect was overcome, that doesn't negate the fact that small markets have less exposure.
SA has a ton less exposure.
You have work to do unless you're just here to troll, in which case troll on.
What a load of horse- .
Tim Duncan played at Wake Forest. Played for Team USA. Youre telling me "the media" doesnt like him because he's "international"?
Garbage.
What do you mean "An" instance?
How bout OKC (small Market) vs. Heat doing better than Dallas (large market) vs. Heat?
How bout Utah (small market) vs Bulls doing better than Phoenix (large market), Los Angeles (huge market), Seattle (medium/large market)?
In today's day and age, teams are not "held" back by small markets.
QUESTION: How many times has the Thunder been on national TV this year?
Answer: A load.
Would they be even BIGGER if they played in New York? Absolutely. But no one has dared brand them boring where as YOU claim a couple posts up that the Spurs are boring becase A) They play in a small market.
I didn't say the Spurs are boring because they play in a small market.
Instead of paraphrasing, quote me. I mean, if it's right there.
Local supermarket
shown only on Fox Sports SW
My mistake.
I confused your quote for ManInBlack.
So you were saying?
Kevin Durant is number one.
Local supermarket
Most appearances: Nike.
Theres more than one instance of teams "overcoming" their small market
Exactly. That's the point I have been trying to make. Exposure on a national level. Spurs don't get that. If they were in a large market, someone on that team would get national media exposure just because. Lamar Odom had a reality show. That kind of thing.
Yet Kevin Durant is number ONE despite being in the second smallest NBA market.
And its not a local supermarket. We're talking NIKE here.
im done for today..pick up tomorrow.
For ratings or for rings?Theres more than one instance of teams "overcoming" their small market
The reasons I posted
are the reasons I feel other teams' fans hate the Spurs.
That doesn't mean they won't watch them.
The Spurs are in charge of their own public image, and they choose to remain off the grid in terms of tabloids, and though purists gush about the greatness of their team play, ratings are driven by the casual fan, and casual fan likes media hype. SA has no media hype, some of that is their doing, other is media covering their interests. It's a snowball effect, becomes chicken or the egg thing.
Tim turns down offers all the time for commercials, as does Dirk and other NBA stars.
That's by choice. They prefer private lives.
Jordan came back in '95 and the Magic beat the Bulls. So people were more interested in the NBA due to Jordan's reappearance.
Anybody dumb enough to kid themselves into thinking Jordan didn't = ratings just needs to peep the NBA Finals Ratings history. Ratings dropped when Jordan retired. They increased again when Jordan reappeared in 95, and stayed very high in 96-98 when he got there, then dropped off the face of the earth after he retired in 98.
Shaq vs Hakeem was also marketed a lot more.
If you look at the low markers for the time periods of 1999 thru now for ratings, you will see the Spurs games always dipped relative to their respective 3 year windows.
They never had good ratings. Some is easy to understand given the lockout, but others are just based on people not caring what a North Mexico team does.
Shaq and Penny in the finals.
I do think Jordan helped spur interest in the game itself. Sure, they were eliminated but teh media frenzy on his return especially after the double nickel on the Knicks helped fuel a strong ratings and merchandise year for the NBA. Forbes or Money did a study on Mj's impact in his return and the numbers were crazy, so your friend could be right.
On the 94 side you had post MJ apathy, the OJ chase (pretty much pre-empted a freaking Finals game) AND a ugly brawling style of ball played by the Knicks that gave little reason to watch.
Understand, it's not that the media doesn't like him. It's more that he doesn't like them and rarely grants them an audience on anything.Tim Duncan played at Wake Forest. Played for Team USA. Youre telling me "the media" doesnt like him because he's "international"?
Garbage.
Hence, because he chooses to, he has limited marketability and because of that, the media won't do anything more than a short synopsis which amounts to calling him the Big Fundamental. They don't play it up, they don't paint an image of anything that one could market up. You have articles that call Tim and his team Spectacularly Consistent. That doesn't give casual fan or the media a reason to either like him or the team or play him or the team UP. What the casuals and the media want is Consistently Spectacular. Do you get that? They love Hero Ball as opposed to Team Ball. Hero Ball isn't Tim and it's not the Spurs as constructed by Pop.
Besides, the International factor plays more directly for Parker and Ginobili...or are you going to call that garbage too? Even though Parker says it, that being Internationals meant that they got treated differently.
Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean yours is unchallengeable. Quite the contrary...it's easily challenged.
The NBA has their rules and they label anyone not born in the any of the 50 US states or in DC, to be International. Don't call me out just because the NBA made that an official ruling. In the NBA's eyes, and what should be in yours too...Tim is officially International. But again...he intentionally chooses to not be media- friendly.
http://a.espncdn.com/oly/columns/ste...c/1594477.html
As for playing for Team USA. He didn't have a choice. In 1994, Duncan participated for the Senior Mens USA team. Once you do that, you cannot go back. In 2003, during the Tournament of the Americas, Tim chose to not play any games any games at all against the USVI team. If he had a choice, he might have played for USVI and that would give us more basis for International. Raja Bell is an International. Same Deal as Tim, except Raja first played for the USVI Senior Team. He is still listed on their current roster as well.
Last edited by Man In Black; 06-17-2012 at 01:24 AM.
Who cares what ManInPanties thinks?
I don't care really...all I know is that the Spurs had the lowest rated finals in NBA history each time they went....with 6.5 Neilson rating being their lowest ever....meaning the only 6.5 million people watched that ...meaning only Spurs fan watched that
was there bigmarket vs smallmarket team bias by the media back then?
i was pretty young in the 90s but i don't recall media outlets shoving certain teams down your throat like they do now..
as fairweather as i was, i was aware of who the spurs, timberwolves and magic were
Probably more so just because of the fact it had Shaq in it, as opposed to the rivalry.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
