Reply With Quote
Why is anyone even still replying to this?
These are the only needed facts:
Spurs got high ratings in 1999 against the Knicks. 4th highest out of 14 seasons since Jordan retired in 1998. The Knicks were a popular team, and it was the Spurs' first Finals appearance ever. The ratings were expectedly high as there was high interest in both teams.
SA opponents in 2003, 2005, and 2007:
2003: Nets, a low rated team who was already in the Finals the previous year. vs Spurs, a "boring" team who's been good forever and just knocked off the star-powered bandwagon team of the last 4 seasons in the Lakers. Not a good combination for ratings.
2005: Pistons, another low rated team who was already in the Finals the previous year and even won it. So you have two low rated teams who won the last 2 les in the Finals while knocking off the NBA's bandwagon darling Lakers. The ratings couldn't have been good.
2007: vs Cavs, a low rated team whom everyone expected to get swept or at best win a single game.
Meanwhile,
OKC opponent this year: the very highly rated Miami Heat where LeBron is going for his first ring. The ratings are high, unsurprisingly. They would've been high against the Spurs as well. Especially if the Spurs ended up winning in 5-6 games like they would have if the officiating wasn't bogus as in the WCF. People would've tuned in to pray the Spurs prevented LeBron and Wade from winning.
So somehow the ratings means what again? The Spurs had an even higher rated first Finals. If OKC manages to stay together (I doubt it), their ratings are going to drop the more they're successful. Especially if they keep getting Sterned into the Finals.
