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

[SPARKY]

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 " " 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]

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]

Backhanded compliments are the best.

[Extra Stout]

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]

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

[cherylsteele]

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]

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 le is not only inaccurate, but outright false.

[Slinkyman]

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 le is not only inaccurate, but outright false.

yeah whoever started this thread is dumb and their favorite teams sucks.

[FromWayDowntown]

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 le 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 le, 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]

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

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]

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

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]

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 le, 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 le not only inaccurate, but outright false.

[DarrinS]

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 le not only inaccurate, but outright false.

newbie teams

[swift_carlos]

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.

[Holmes_Fans]

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

[FromWayDowntown]

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 le not only inaccurate, but outright false.

But the le 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 le 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]

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 ty to merely awful, and unless Miami does something to at least make it look compe ive, they won't get any better.

[ObiwanGinobili]

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.

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

[angryllama]

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.

[LEONARD]

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

I wish they were still on TNT...

[FromWayDowntown]

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]

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

[temujin]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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