Even with the Lakers meeting little resistance as they won 4-2, 4-1 and 4-0 in 2000, 2001 and 2002, respectively, the Finals drew ratings of 11.6, 12.2 and 10.2.
After the Lakers were knocked out in the second round, the San Antonio Spurs and New Jersey Nets drew a 6.5 in 2003.
A year later with the Lakers back in the Finals — briefly — against the Pistons, the ratings went back to 11.5.
Last spring when it was the Spurs and Pistons, the ratings dropped back to 8.2, even with a seven-game series.
I think the NBA should decide which teams play in the Finals based on some combination of the quality of the team and the likelihood that the team will draw a big television rating. If a team can't draw ratings, they just shouldn't be eligible for the Finals.
This is more of the NBA's fault then the spurs or any other team without Shaq, the NBA spent years hyping players and not the teams nor the game of basketball unlike the NFL and when these overrated players like AI, KG, etc. don't make past the first round the ratings drop. Hopefully the NBA has learned their lesson and will stop hyping prima dona's and let the game of basketball be the star, like football is the star of the NFL.
Like the BCS
I agree that the NBA has made this bed, but I'm not sure that the league either: (a) sees it as a problem; or (b) has any desire to remedy the problem it has created. Marketing stars is great in the regular season when you can put them on and keep them on television regularly, but if your playoffs are genuine, you run an extreme risk that your showcase event will involve players who aren't necessarily the annointed ones, in which case, you've told casual fans that they really shouldn't pay much attention to the players who reach that level and they respond by turning off their televisions.
Some might say "like the WWE."
i get it, Miami or Laker-11% across America like watching ShaQ
.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
