Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-12-2007, 09:06 AM   #91
John Starks
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,983
John Starks has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: San Antonio/Cleveland 7.9 rating lowest ever for a NBA Finals Game 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigy
1. Both teams are boring to watch. Especially the Cavs.

2. Everyone and their dog knows the Spurs are going to win in under 6.

These points have already been discussed in the thread. Blame marketing all you want, but when even a fan like me who has been watching games vividly over the past few seasons can't stay awake for the finals games you now there is something wrong with the NBA that grows deeper than the fact that it is being broadcasted on ABC.

OK vivid fan, please explain what is so boring abot the Spurs/Cavs and also tell me what teams are "exciting" to watch?
John Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 11:29 AM   #92
Poseidon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,377
Poseidon has decent reputationPoseidon has decent reputation
Default Re: San Antonio/Cleveland 7.9 rating lowest ever for a NBA Finals Game 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Starks
Weekend games too? I doubt that. If you say so, then I'll take your word, and I'll still say that its wrong. If the SB can start at 6:45 on a Sun then so can the NBA Finals.

YES weekends too. This has been the time slot for ALL Finals games since the mid-80's (Lakers/Celtics).

Quote:
Even the mighty fast-break Magic Lakers ddn't break tHAT much during the Finals.

Lakers were pulling in ratings anywhere between 14-16 during their Finals run (compared to 6 for this Cavs/Spurs series). So you're wrong again.

The problem is that the NBA/ESPN tried to sell LeBron James as the "next big thing" and people were smarter than that because it's clear that he's NOT. He lacks the game, persona, charisma and world-wide appeal to even be mention in the same breath as MJ.

Believe it or not, casual NBA fans don't give a damn about LeBron James or the Spurs pseudo "Dynasty." But this is what David Joel Stern wanted. The so-called "savior" and "Golden child" of the league on it's biggest stage.....only to fall flat on his face. Stern is getting what he deserves.
Poseidon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 11:47 AM   #93
John Starks
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,983
John Starks has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: San Antonio/Cleveland 7.9 rating lowest ever for a NBA Finals Game 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
Lakers were pulling in ratings anywhere between 14-16 during their Finals run (compared to 6 for this Cavs/Spurs series). So you're wrong again.

I never said that the Lakers didn't pull ratings - my dispute is over the perception that the Cavs/Spurs are boring. My point about Magic's Lakers is that they slowed it down for the Finals also and didn't break that often...so even though they were not THAT exciting either, they still pulled a 15.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
The problem is that the NBA/ESPN tried to sell LeBron James as the "next big thing" and people were smarter than that because it's clear that he's NOT. He lacks the game, persona, charisma and world-wide appeal to even be mention in the same breath as MJ.

I understand absolutely 0 of your point...They tried to sell LeB as the next big thing because of his rediculous stats and the significant improvement of his team over his short time there. If he had been a bust, they's have left him alone.

I tend ot agree that his game is not as sleek and athletic as Mj and is therefore not as much fun to watch, but NO ONE is the league is as sleek and athletic and effective as MJ. So, what, we can never have another well-rated finals until we discovery what has only come around once in 75 years of the league?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
Believe it or not, casual NBA fans don't give a damn about LeBron James or the Spurs pseudo "Dynasty." But this is what David Joel Stern wanted. The so-called "savior" and "Golden child" of the league on it's biggest stage.....only to fall flat on his face. Stern is getting what he deserves.

Casual fans care about what advertisers tell them to care about. ESPN/ABC did a crap job promoting this product over the last 5 years and the results keep showing themselves.

Not sure what Stern has to do. T othe extent he controls promotion, he promotes guys who produce -- LeB's production has been top 5 in the league for the last 3 years and his team has played in meaningful games over the last 3 years...who else should they promote?
John Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 12:01 PM   #94
Poseidon
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,377
Poseidon has decent reputationPoseidon has decent reputation
Default Re: San Antonio/Cleveland 7.9 rating lowest ever for a NBA Finals Game 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Starks
Not sure what Stern has to do. T othe extent he controls promotion, he promotes guys who produce -- LeB's production has been top 5 in the league for the last 3 years and his team has played in meaningful games over the last 3 years...who else should they promote?

TEAMS and not individual players.

When you HYPE a player like LeBron and if he doesn't deliver (which has been the case thus far) then the casual fan who briefly tuned in to see what the big fuss is over this guy quickly loses interest.

With Jordan, you can sell the player MORE than the team because of WHO Jordan was and what he represented. You can NOT do this in today's game because other than Kobe (a polarizing figure who will draw ratings) and probably Shaquille....the casual fan doesn't know or care about a LeBron James or a Tim Duncan or a Allen Iverson.
Poseidon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2007, 12:32 PM   #95
John Starks
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,983
John Starks has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: San Antonio/Cleveland 7.9 rating lowest ever for a NBA Finals Game 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
TEAMS and not individual players.


I agree that you are better off promoting teams and not players -- that's another place where ABC/ESPN screwed up this year. SA was only on the Nationally televised sunday game 3 times this year....why? We all KNOW how good they will be, we all know how well they play, why not promote THAT team. Phx wans't on enough either.

Meanwhile the Lakers were on 6 times. Now, why do we promote the Lakers? They're a nice mid-season rating grab, but they'll do nothing for the ultimate prize of big Finals ratings.

AND EVEN MORESO - there were no ABC ads for these Sunday games...why? Accoridng to Jim draws 0 ratings and its advertised as nauseum on ABC stations...why not advertise your NBA product?
John Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2007, 03:16 PM   #96
John Starks
National High School Star
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,983
John Starks has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: San Antonio/Cleveland 7.9 rating lowest ever for a NBA Finals Game 1

Hey, here's a guy who gets it - amazingly a sportwriter not employed by ABC/ESPN:

Kreigel of FoxSports

----------------------------------------------------
Some of you are mourning the end of The Sopranos.

Then there are others, myself included, grieving for the demise of another formerly must-see television event.
That would be the NBA Finals.

They debuted last Thursday to record-low ratings. Basketball fans were then left to endure two-plus days of features on San Antonio's Riverwalk and endless updates on Tony Parker's nuptials, suggesting that there might be limits to how much Eva Longoria the American public can take. Finally, on Sunday evening, the series resumed, pitted against the long-awaited finale of the Sopranos.

Those of us who care for the game asked how that could happen. By the second quarter, however, the point was moot. No one cared. Not even basketball fans.

The ratings for the Finals are flatter than Phil Leotardo's head. But forget the Sopranos. David Stern's league has bigger problems. Game 1 ripe with possibility, coming right off LeBron James' mesmerizing performance against Detroit couldn't even beat So You Think You Can Dance?


In the interest of fairness, I'm obliged to mention that this series is something of an anomaly. For without James, the Cavaliers are the least accomplished collection of players ever to appear in the championship round. What's more, difficult as it is to believe, the series may improve. Cleveland may yet get a game or two and provide the illusion of competitiveness.

But this isn't about this year. What's happened to the Finals isn't exactly a new development. It's not about Tim Duncan's lack of charisma. Nor is it about the endless search for another Michael Jordan, who hasn't played in the Finals since 1998, a year before the Sopranos aired. David Stern has long been known as the smartest commissioner in sports. Still, one can't help but wonder if he's finally outsmarted himself.

ABC did a 6.3 rating for the first game down 19 percent from the previous year's opener and a 6.5 for the second. Compare that to, say, the World Series. Last year's five games between St. Louis and Detroit was the lowest-rated World Series ever. It did a 10.1.

Worse, if the ratings hold (which they will), it will mark the fourth time in five years that the Finals averaged single-digit ratings. It's worth mentioning, of course, that the NBA has been with ABC for five years now.

Stern's people will tell you that we live in a new age of new media. Everybody but the NFL has taken a hit. Appointment TV is a thing of the past. But these arguments neglect a central point: even in this new age, there is no substitute for good old regularly scheduled network TV.

The commissioner made huge money for his owners when he negotiated his pact with ABC/ESPN/TNT. It was a groundbreaking deal. The problem is, every year the NBA feels more like a regional cable operation. The TNT broadcasts are fine, but you never know if you're going to get basketball or reruns of Law and Order. As for the Finals, they're on too late. I'm not talking about the kiddies, either. I'm talking about rank and file East Coast basketball junkies. Again, this is nothing new NBC was as bad on this count as ABC but it's taken a toll over the years.

Unlike NBC, though, ABC doesn't really promote the game. That's all left to its cable arm, ESPN. The network doesn't seem interested in anything so mundane as showing a good game on a Sunday afternoon. And that's a shame, because that's still where the franchise is built, where casual fans get hooked during the season.

David Stern is renegotiating the league's TV deal right now. He might want to consider how the Finals became a big event in the first place, all those people who became NBA fans watching Julius and Magic and Larry and Michael and Shaq and Kobe on network TV.

The great sport of pro basketball is now following the business model of boxing and hockey. Perhaps Stern doesn't think it could happen, that basketball could again become a niche sport. Then again, Phil Leotardo never saw it coming, either.
John Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:25 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy