Sandomir - NBA TV Ratings in Tank

Yes, these Finals suck.

But guess what? So have the past three World Series.

So have more than half of the Super Bowls.

So did last January's BCS national title game.

So have the last two NCAA basketball national title games.

Does 75-72 suck? It can . . . but it doesn't have to.

What was the score of the 1983 NCAA title game, a pretty good one if I remember correctly? They would have had to play 4-5 overtimes to reach 75-72.

 

No shot clock back then. Apples to oranges comparison. Which games were better this year, the Final Four or the NBA Finals?

NCSU-Houston in 1983 probably would have been a great, memorable game because Valvano wouldn't have been able to slow the Cougars down by buring up a minute or two on every possession.

McHale, Bird, The Chief, Abdul-Jabbar, et all played defense back when the NBA routinely scored in the 100s. They just couldn't clutch and grab like everyone does today, so the offenses flowed better, the players moved more freely and the game was so much more watchable.

Who did you enjoy watching, the Celtics/Lakers of the late 1980s or the Thomas/Laimbeer Detroit Pistons?

A lot of people enjoy the NBA.

Increasing numbers do not, though, and it's shown by Finals ratings that are dropping like a stone while other ratings are declining at a much steadier, slower rate, and by thousands of empty seats or no-shows at NBA arenas.

 

Thousands of empty seats isn't even close to true. Total attendance and average attendance per game records were set for the second straight year.
And if ratings are dropping like a stone, then so are MLB's and NHL's (obviously even more so than any other sport).

 

Chuck, nobody is saying baseball is perfect. Or, if they are, I'm not seeing it. And, honestly, your "NBA will dominate as the kids get older" line sounds a hell of a lot like what some of my soccer compatriots have been saying since the mid-1970s.

The World Series has an edge over the NBA Finals due to the time of year. In October, it's getting colder and the sun sets early. In June, the weather is nice and the sun is up until 8 p.m. That alone will keep people outside doing things instead of being indoors watching TV.

 

Doesn't really matter, because you'll change the parameters to fit your argument anyway. It just so happened this year the early rounds of the playoffs were terrific, the later rounds not so much. Usually it's the opposite. Sometimes the upsets we cheer early create mismatches later . . . just like they do in the NCAA.

In the late 70s there was the same opining about how great the college game was, despite four-corner stalls and 51-49 scores.

There was bitching about the NBA players not playing defense.

Now, when defense is being played, the argument changes into some idiocy about how these elite players "can't hit the midrange jumper" . . . as if they somehow forgot in those days since they played such an exciting game for old State U., hitting midrage jumper after midrange jumper.

People will always invent myths to fit an argument.

 

Logically, one would think think so. That's how its supposed to work but not necessarily how it does. Ratings are a fraction of what they were in the Bird/Magic/Jordan days, yet salaries are immeasurably higher.

The NBA really needed Phoenix to reach the finals this year, the Suns with their full-speed precision passing game are the most enjoyable team to watch play in years, they certainly would've drawn more interest and better ratings. Instead, we just get another half-court low-scoring boring Spurs championship.

 

NBA salary cap is solely based on a percentage of revenue.

United States TV revenue is just one piece of that pie. And international and marketing revenue has more than made up for stagnant TV viewership.

And ratings for ALL sports are a fraction of what they used to be . . . yet salaries have gone through the roof.

Remember, population increase somewhat mitigates declining ratings.

It's TOTAL VIEWERS that counts, not a ratings number.

Many years ago a 25 rating used to mean 15 million viewers.

Today a 14 rating = 15 million viewers.

 

I have a problem with basketball as a tv sport. Its hard to follow the ball - even in HD.

 

What sucks is that a lot of sports are being shot in "center cut protect," meaning even though it's shot in HD, you have to protect for SD. So the HD cameras can't "get tight." They have to stay wide. And it's going to take a long time to correct this... we have to wait until most of the country is getting HD.

 

Do you think James has a mid-range game? Just curious.

 

ABC/ESPN would be smart to highlight the basketball so it would be easier to follow on tv, I bet it would be wildly popular.


As for ratings.....my theory is baseball becomes more attractive as one grows older. When you're in high school and college.....you follow your team, but don't watch many games because.... your a teenager/college student and want to be out at night as much as possible! But once you join the workforce, you need your rest and tend to spend most weeknights at home, and there always seems to be a game on..........so most people don't truly become hardcore fans until they start working.

 

You give him an open 14-footer, and he will make it with a ridiculously high percentage.

But defenses aren't going to let that happen. Whether it's by spacing or doubling or whatever, they simply don't let players wander in and shoot uncontested 14-footers.

I think Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals showed James has pretty much any game. If you try to stop him with A, he'll beat you with B.