Reply With Quote
NBA's worst case scenario comes true.
They are stodgy and conservative, playing conventional offense. They are led by two no-nonsense, no-frills coaches. The biggest star, and that is using the term loosely, is a stoic big man who has failed to wow most casual fans, even after winning three championships and three NBA Finals MVP awards. They play in small-markets that are apparently so out-of-touch that in one city, 2Unlimited's "Are You Ready for This?" is played during the player intros, and in the other, Tina Turner's "Simply the Best" was blared through the speakers after the team won in the second round.
These are not sexy teams. These are not big markets. And for many, these are not entertaining teams.
These are the San Antonio Spurs and the Utah Jazz, and for the next two weeks, they will be the background music to the Cavaliers/Pistons series in the East.
The two teams they eliminated, the Golden State Warriors and the Phoenix Suns, are the an hesis of these two teams. Flashy, exciting teams that play an up-tempo style. Teams that even the most casual fan would tune in to see. So far in this postseason, the highest rated games involved either of the two teams; in fact, no game without either Golden State or Phoenix has even averaged a 3.0 national rating.
Granted, the same could be said of San Antonio and Utah. After all, the Spurs and Jazz were involved in those series as well; the problem is, people were not tuning in to watch them. It is almost like saying the Jazz were involved in two of the highest rated NBA Finals ever -- that may be true, but nobody was tuning in to see Karl Malone and John Stockton in 1997 and 1998.
The Spurs and Jazz have a reputation to overcome. The two teams have played a fairly colorless style basketball on many occasions -- especially the former -- with slow, plodding games that made many fans tune out. Anyone who remembers the 1999 and 2003 NBA Finals knows that Spurs basketball is generally not something to lead someone to jump out of their seat with excitement. In fact, as offensive as this may sound to San Antonio fans, Spurs basketball is more along the lines of something the Comcast Slowskys might enjoy.
The Jazz, despite having a completely new cast of characters from the last time they were prominent, still have the reputation as a half-court, slow-it-down team that they earned during their run in the 1990s.
Nobody expects the games in this series to be wildly entertaining in the fashion of a Warriors or Suns game, though purists will likely enjoy what should be a no-frills, no-fancy passes, no-showboating, fairly emotionless series. While Golden State/Phoenix would have had final scores of 120-110 and at least one out-of-this-world highlight per night, Utah/San Antonio will likely enthrall fans with 81-74 scores and monotone expressions for six to seven games.
And none of that would have been a problem three years ago. Ratings would have been bad, but not as bad as they will be this year. Three years ago, in 2004, low scoring, plodding games were expected. There was no hope for excitement or even for overly charismatic stars. A Spurs/Jazz series would have been expected three years ago, because nobody knew of anything better.
Now, three years later, people know that there is a more entertaining product. That basketball with predictable offenses and scores in the low 80s is not a requirement of the playoffs. That teams can actually appear to have fun while playing, that games can be vibrant and have people jump out of their seats. After being tantalized with a Phoenix/Golden State Conference Final, casual and even many NBA fans will tune out -- almost in protest -- of a series that could very well set basketball back to 1999-2004 levels.
Currently, the lowest rated Conference Final of at least the last twenty years was New Jersey/Detroit in 2003 -- a series exactly like Spurs/Jazz. Two relatively unappealing teams from two relatively unappealing markets playing very unappealing, fundamental basketball. The scores in that series? 76-74, 88-86, 97-85 and 102-82, all won by the Nets. The ratings for that series were 3.5, 2.7, 4.2 and 1.9, with the two highest ratings the product of airing on broadcast television (ABC). If Utah/San Antonio goes to six or seven games, as it likely will, expect higher numbers. Despite the disaster awaiting ABC/ESPN, the ratings should at the very least be slightly within reason.
This is not to offend the fans of the Jazz or Spurs; after all, Spurs fans must know by now that most of the nation is not interested in their team. Drops of 40%, 36% and 29% for each of the three Finals the team has played in should be a good indicator of that by now. It is certainly not the fault of the San Antonio Spurs that they do not interest mainstream America; as unfair as it is, if the exact roster of the team was transfered into Laker jerseys, they may in fact be the talk of the town and leading the NBA to a new golden age of television ratings.
Then again, that may not be true; after all the New York Knicks of 1994 and 1999, teams that played a particularly gruesome style of basketball, failed to inspire the interest of most viewers. The 1994 Finals and 1999 Finals were down 31% and 40%, respectively, from previous years.
The fact may be that the Spurs and the Jazz simply just don't do it for most viewers. Whether its the just-the-facts-ma'am type of play, or the small markets, or even the lifeless color schemes of both teams (black and white for the Spurs, navy/powder blue and white for the Jazz). The package just does not work. And in the next two weeks, the NBA will see a series that may very well be a classic one. Unfortunately for the league and ESPN/ABC, barely anyone will watch.
Labels: NBA Playoffs, Ratings
