PDA

View Full Version : Superteams draw ratings



NYSpirit1
05-17-2011, 01:13 AM
Love them or hate the Miami Heat are proving to be a TV ratings tour de force. The big three of LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh are driving the numbers to record levels.

However, last night when the Bulls beat Miami 103-82 in front of a loud United Center crowd in Chicago to take a 1-0 lead in their best of seven Eastern Conference Final series and it was the highest rated NBA telecast in cable history.

The game delivering 11.1 million total viewers and a 6.2 U.S. HH rating. .

Game two of the series is set for Chicago Wednesday night at 8pm on TNT with the tipoff at 8:30pm and Miami will be looking to even the series at 1-1.

The NBA Playoff ratings continue on a steady rise a great trend for the league that has seen record ratings for the first two rounds of the playoffs for TNT, ESPN and NBA TV.

Through the first two rounds spanning 35 games, TNT had a 3.0 household rating average, up 25% from a 2.4 in 2010, posted a 29% rise in households to 3.53 million from 2.74 million and leaped 33% to 4.82 million viewers from 3.64 million, according to Nielsen.

First-round games on ABC, ESPN and TNT were watched by an average of 4.15 million people, up from fewer than 3.2 million last year.

All of the Eastern Conference Final games will be telecast on TNT with the Western Conference Finals between Dallas and Oklahoma City airing on ESPN/ABC starting Tuesday night at 9p.m.

Credit: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/watch/2011/05/bulls-win-over-miami-tnt-highest-rated-nba-game-cable-history


For as many people who say superteams hurt the NBA, they only help it. There may be less teams in small markets that aren't doing well, but when masses of people are in cities like NY, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Chicago, people tune in.

For example, Minnesota is a very small media market and has a smaller percentage of people than New York. If their team stinks or even if the team is rescinded, it won't matter, because the 8 million people in New York will make up for it.

Hopefully we see Howard, Paul and even a Kevin Love make the big market teams stronger - it will only lead to more revenue and ratings success for the NBA.

davids22
05-17-2011, 01:14 AM
I don't think people say they hurt the NBA's profits or popularity... it's just ****** for the general fan in a small market when they know their team will never EVER be able to compete for a ring, barring a miracle run. Parity is ruined, the NBA's profits are not.

jneises21
05-17-2011, 01:15 AM
Credit: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/watch/2011/05/bulls-win-over-miami-tnt-highest-rated-nba-game-cable-history


For as many people who say superteams hurt the NBA, they only help it. There may be less teams in small markets that aren't doing well, but when masses of people are in cities like NY, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Chicago, people tune in.

For example, Minnesota is a very small media market and has a smaller percentage of people than New York. If their team stinks or even if the team is rescinded, it won't matter, because the 8 million people in New York will make up for it.

Hopefully we see Howard, Paul and even a Kevin Love make the big market teams stronger - it will only lead to more revenue and ratings success for the NBA.

The revenue and ratings of the NBA mean nothing to the average fan though

godolphins
05-17-2011, 01:20 AM
David Stern, you know what you have to do :eyebrow:

sargon21
05-17-2011, 01:21 AM
If I was a small-market fan, I'd probably be pissed about it.

sargon21
05-17-2011, 01:21 AM
david stern, you know what you have to do :eyebrow:

1.7%

davids22
05-17-2011, 01:28 AM
1.7%

Hahaha, first time I've ever seen a Bulls fan admit that was kinda sketchy.

godolphins
05-17-2011, 01:30 AM
1.7%
:confused:

davids22
05-17-2011, 01:31 AM
:confused:

He's referring to the 2008 NBA draft where the Heat had a 25% chance at the #1 pick (Derrick Rose) and the Bulls had a 1.7%

sargon21
05-17-2011, 01:33 AM
Hahaha, first time I've ever seen a Bulls fan admit that was kinda sketchy.

Hahah gotta do it.

championships
05-17-2011, 01:33 AM
Then I guess we all have to accept that superteams are going to be the future. I am sure Stern is just drooling over these ratings. We all know that he loves his ratings and will do anything to get them.

godolphins
05-17-2011, 01:39 AM
He's referring to the 2008 NBA draft where the Heat had a 25% chance at the #1 pick (Derrick Rose) and the Bulls had a 1.7%
All I have to say is: Wade and Lebron= Major ratings

Stern better start doing his thing

gaughan333
05-17-2011, 01:39 AM
It was also convenient that the year the bulls got that pick they were able to draft a hometown kid. Good story for the NBA. I'll admit it is sketchy, but I could not be happier.

iggypop123
05-17-2011, 01:45 AM
we'll see how that theory goes with dallas and okc. not exactly the lakers there so i wonder how bad espn will suffer

GoatMilk
05-17-2011, 01:51 AM
I don't think people say they hurt the NBA's profits or popularity... it's just ****** for the general fan in a small market when they know their team will never EVER be able to compete for a ring, barring a miracle run. Parity is ruined, the NBA's profits are not.

exactly
well said

JNA17
05-17-2011, 02:03 AM
I still think the NBA hurt itself competition wise (small market teams getting the kick in the ***) and profit wise. Sure the NBA is getting it's profits now but in the long run you will see that it will not be the case. I would not be surprised if it were to happen sooner or later.

MagicHero3
05-17-2011, 08:13 AM
David Stern, you know what you have to do :eyebrow:

quit? he should quit. and donate all his $ to charity. and live under a bridge.

jimbobjarree
05-17-2011, 08:26 AM
how does Stern and his boys getting more money through ratings help the average fan's enjoyment though? You make no sense.

Your basically saying let all the small market teams burn to the ground (the majority of the league) just so Stern can get better ratings in May....I don't see how that benefits anyone but one man? :confused:

ne3xchamps
05-17-2011, 08:56 AM
Credit: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/watch/2011/05/bulls-win-over-miami-tnt-highest-rated-nba-game-cable-history


For as many people who say superteams hurt the NBA, they only help it. There may be less teams in small markets that aren't doing well, but when masses of people are in cities like NY, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Chicago, people tune in.

For example, Minnesota is a very small media market and has a smaller percentage of people than New York. If their team stinks or even if the team is rescinded, it won't matter, because the 8 million people in New York will make up for it.

Hopefully we see Howard, Paul and even a Kevin Love make the big market teams stronger - it will only lead to more revenue and ratings success for the NBA.

It may be successful ratings and revenue, but its not exactly fair to the small market teams to be able to compete. I see what you are saying though. Its a tough call for me.
Now some players I wish were in a big market so their talents would be more visible to the rest of the country.

ne3xchamps
05-17-2011, 08:59 AM
quit? he should quit. and donate all his $ to charity. and live under a bridge.

this. I HATE david stern. he is the poster child for greed. He needs to be forced out of office IMO.
and on a side note, there is still refs being paid off on games, and they are gambling on the games... guaranteed.

daleja424
05-17-2011, 09:00 AM
How do you fail to see it? Ratings were up substantially ALL YEAR. Do you really think the league makes money off of team like Minnesota? NO. The money in this league is made in the big markets. When the big markets are interesting, the league thrives. The golden ages in NBA basketball have historically been when there were superteams (Bulls, Lakers, Celtics) NOT when there was parody. History views eras without superteams as lulls in the NBA story. The NBA is defined by it's superteams. It is time to embrace that.

Every sport, even the NFL, has its teams that are great year after year... and it has its teams that are bad year after year. A hard cap does not create parody. If you give everyone in the world 10 dollars to invest I assure you that the best investors will make the most money. It is the same with pro sports. Even if you "level the playing field" you still have owners/GMs that will inevitably spend that money way better (and big markets will become even more attractive as players try to make up contract money with exposure opportunities)

daleja424
05-17-2011, 09:05 AM
Professional sports will always be dominated, with few exceptions, by the big markets. The big markets make the most money, have the most fans, are the most attractive to free agents, etc etc etc.

Let me ask you, if I told you I was going to give you 100k a year to either live and work in Miami, LA, NY, or Milwaukee... how many of you are really going to choose to live in Wisconsin? All other things equal, people would still rather be in the big markets.

Greet
05-17-2011, 09:17 AM
The Heat aren't a "superteam" lmao

jockrider
05-17-2011, 09:20 AM
It may be successful ratings and revenue, but its not exactly fair to the small market teams to be able to compete. I see what you are saying though. Its a tough call for me.
Now some players I wish were in a big market so their talents would be more visible to the rest of the country.

all they need to do is win, like okc and durant, lebron cleveland. it doesn't really matter as long as the team is interesting. Miami isn't exactly a big market but they are the most interesting team in the league.

jockrider
05-17-2011, 09:22 AM
Professional sports will always be dominated, with few exceptions, by the big markets. The big markets make the most money, have the most fans, are the most attractive to free agents, etc etc etc.

Let me ask you, if I told you I was going to give you 100k a year to either live and work in Miami, LA, NY, or Milwaukee... how many of you are really going to choose to live in Wisconsin? All other things equal, people would still rather be in the big markets.

putting Mia in the same category as LA,NY isn't right you should replace mia with chi those markets significantly BIGGER than MIA.

LakersIn5
05-17-2011, 09:25 AM
is it the big market team's fault they players want to play for them? its the small market team's fault that they suck. what do you want the big market teams to do? pity the weak teams???? every team follow the same rules. dont it sucks when people bash big market teams. and i would rather see a team like the heat to win a championship like teams like minesota. why? because they did a better job making a team!

daleja424
05-17-2011, 09:25 AM
Miami isn't as big of a market, but it has other draws for FAs. My point was simply that cities with more desirable traits (whether that be in lifestyle, fame, money opportunities, history, etc) are going to dominate the FA market regardless of whether or not you level the monetary playing field.

SteBO
05-17-2011, 09:29 AM
putting Mia in the same category as LA,NY isn't right you should replace mia with chi those markets significantly BIGGER than MIA.

He's speaking in terms of lifestyle, diversity maybe, and other draws that can lure FA's their way. Miami is a great city to live in, as well as Chicago. I've been there quite a few times myself. Haven't you noticed many NBA players buy homes in Florida for the summer? Boozer was one, and many others.

daleja424
05-17-2011, 09:37 AM
Simply put, look at a list of NBA cities... I'm sure that 5-6 of them will jump out at you as highly more desirable places to live than the rest (Chicago, Miami, NY, Boston, LA, and Dallas come to mind off the bat for me).

Tarheels23
05-17-2011, 09:38 AM
Lets not discount the fact that the Bulls had something to do with the ratings too. I mean they do have a team that "basketball purists" love to watch from a defensive/scheme prospective. And it also doesnt hurt that the Chicago/Illinois market is HUGE

ne3xchamps
05-17-2011, 09:40 AM
How do you fail to see it? Ratings were up substantially ALL YEAR. Do you really think the league makes money off of team like Minnesota? NO. The money in this league is made in the big markets. When the big markets are interesting, the league thrives. The golden ages in NBA basketball have historically been when there were superteams (Bulls, Lakers, Celtics) NOT when there was parody. History views eras without superteams as lulls in the NBA story. The NBA is defined by it's superteams. It is time to embrace that.

Every sport, even the NFL, has its teams that are great year after year... and it has its teams that are bad year after year. A hard cap does not create parody. If you give everyone in the world 10 dollars to invest I assure you that the best investors will make the most money. It is the same with pro sports. Even if you "level the playing field" you still have owners/GMs that will inevitably spend that money way better (and big markets will become even more attractive as players try to make up contract money with exposure opportunities)

True, but at least in the NFL, there realistically are about 18-20 teams that have a shot. You don't see 20 teams in the NBA that can say that. You really can't compare the NFL and the NBA, so don't try.

daleja424
05-17-2011, 10:00 AM
True, but at least in the NFL, there realistically are about 18-20 teams that have a shot. You don't see 20 teams in the NBA that can say that. You really can't compare the NFL and the NBA, so don't try.

Green Bay Packers, NO Saints, Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, Indy Colts, NE Patriots, Tampa Bay Bucs, Baltimore Ravens, and St. Louis Rams have won the title since the turn of the century. 9 teams in 12 super bowls.

look at baseball...which has adopted a free market approach...

SF Giants, Yankees, Philles, Red Sox, Cardinals, White Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks. 9 teams in 11 World Series.

look at basketball... which is somewhere in between the two systems...

LA, Boston, SA, Miami, Detroit. 5 teams in 11 NBA Finals.

(Also Orlando, Cleveland, Dallas, New Jersey, Philly and Indiana have made it to the finals a lost)


So baseball and football are the extremes, and they have similar parody, despite extremely different cba's.

The NBA has less parody as a hybrid system. That just tells me that the NBA game is more dependent on a smaller group of players. The elite players can usually overcome a good team, b/c there are only 5 players on the court at a given time.

The best 3-5 players in the league will always find a way to get deep in the playoffs, and whoever has those players will move forward, not matter whether you level the monetary playing field. It also happens that those 3-5 players would usually prefer to play in the high demand cities...

daleja424
05-17-2011, 10:03 AM
True, but at least in the NFL, there realistically are about 18-20 teams that have a shot. You don't see 20 teams in the NBA that can say that. You really can't compare the NFL and the NBA, so don't try.

It is a function of the game...not the system. In the NFL and MLB there are a lot more players on a team. A single great player has a far smaller impact when he is only playing one side of the ball or only batting once every 3 innings.

In the NBA, an elite player can effect nearly every play in a game, so a single star can have a far greater impact. That is why either Kobe, Shaq, or Tim Duncan had appeared in every NBA Finals the past 13 years...

king4day
05-17-2011, 10:15 AM
Credit: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/watch/2011/05/bulls-win-over-miami-tnt-highest-rated-nba-game-cable-history


For as many people who say superteams hurt the NBA, they only help it. There may be less teams in small markets that aren't doing well, but when masses of people are in cities like NY, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Chicago, people tune in.

For example, Minnesota is a very small media market and has a smaller percentage of people than New York. If their team stinks or even if the team is rescinded, it won't matter, because the 8 million people in New York will make up for it.

Hopefully we see Howard, Paul and even a Kevin Love make the big market teams stronger - it will only lead to more revenue and ratings success for the NBA.

Ask all of the fans for teams that never succeed if they care in the least bit about ratings.
If may help in the short term but it hurts teams that can't get better because no one wants to play there.

daleja424
05-17-2011, 10:21 AM
Ask all of the fans for teams that never succeed if they care in the least bit about ratings.
If may help in the short term but it hurts teams that can't get better because no one wants to play there.

but guess what... no matter what you do players are never going to be flocking to Milwaukee, Minnesota, etc.

There are only so many elite players to go around... and they usually want to play in the best places to live! Nothing the NBA does is going to change that.

Whats more, why should a place like NY be penalized b/c it has more fans and generates more revenue? If a big team makes more money, it should be able to spend more money. This is AMERICA! This country is not socialist. Businesses do not pool there money and redistribute it so that everyone gets a fair shot. if you make more money in the real world, you have more money to spend. period

king4day
05-17-2011, 10:22 AM
How do you fail to see it? Ratings were up substantially ALL YEAR. Do you really think the league makes money off of team like Minnesota? NO. The money in this league is made in the big markets. When the big markets are interesting, the league thrives. The golden ages in NBA basketball have historically been when there were superteams (Bulls, Lakers, Celtics) NOT when there was parody. History views eras without superteams as lulls in the NBA story. The NBA is defined by it's superteams. It is time to embrace that.

Every sport, even the NFL, has its teams that are great year after year... and it has its teams that are bad year after year. A hard cap does not create parody. If you give everyone in the world 10 dollars to invest I assure you that the best investors will make the most money. It is the same with pro sports. Even if you "level the playing field" you still have owners/GMs that will inevitably spend that money way better (and big markets will become even more attractive as players try to make up contract money with exposure opportunities)

I disagree with this. If a player doesn't want to come to a place like Charlotte, how is that the GM's fault?
A hard cap forces players to decide what means more, money or winning. If the superteams want to continue, then the players will have to make sacrafices.
We'll see who's most loyal then.
Miami's 3 did that. They made a big sacrafice that will prevent them from a catastrophe should a lower hard cap is put in place.
NY would be in troubles for spending so much on two guys.

king4day
05-17-2011, 10:24 AM
but guess what... no matter what you do players are never going to be flocking to Milwaukee, Minnesota, etc.

There are only so many elite players to go around... and they usually want to play in the best places to live! Nothing the NBA does is going to change that.

Whats more, why should a place like NY be penalized b/c it has more fans and generates more revenue? If a big team makes more money, it should be able to spend more money. This is AMERICA! This country is not socialist. Businesses do not pool there money and redistribute it so that everyone gets a fair shot. if you make more money in the real world, you have more money to spend. period

Right, but as we saw with Detroit and to a lesser extent, Memphis this year, a hard cap would force GM's to go to work and find players that fit a system that would be able to compete.
For example, if Lebron, Wade, Melo, Amar'e are all on different teams, then it is possible that lesser teams (now) can put a team together to defeat Lebron. It's up to the GM's and coaches to do that and would make their job more important than it is now.

daleja424
05-17-2011, 10:25 AM
I disagree with this. If a player doesn't want to come to a place like Charlotte, how is that the GM's fault?
A hard cap forces players to decide what means more, money or winning. If the superteams want to continue, then the players will have to make sacrafices.
We'll see who's most loyal then.
Miami's 3 did that. They made a big sacrafice that will prevent them from a catastrophe should a lower hard cap is put in place.
NY would be in troubles for spending so much on two guys.

B/c GMs/Owners have to try to land these guys and put good teams around them. The dumb GMs that offer huge deals to mediocre talent would screw their team for years. Thats the point I was trying to make. For instance... Atlanta gave Joe Johnson the MAX. That is a dumb way to spend money. A lot of GMs around the league severely overspend on the FA market, and that would continue to happen. If you give every GM 60 million to spend...some are going to spend that money better...and it isn't going to stop superteams from forming (as you pointed out)

daleja424
05-17-2011, 10:28 AM
Right, but as we saw with Detroit and to a lesser extent, Memphis this year, a hard cap would force GM's to go to work and find players that fit a system that would be able to compete.
For example, if Lebron, Wade, Melo, Amar'e are all on different teams, then it is possible that lesser teams (now) can put a team together to defeat Lebron. It's up to the GM's and coaches to do that and would make their job more important than it is now.

Detroit is the exception to the rule. The best players in the league win the titles. There are 3-5 players in the league at a given time that can absolutely dominate a game regaurdless of who else is on the floor. Who ever has these 3-5 players is going to be there in the end 90% of the time. Putting in a hard cap will not suddenly mean that every team gets a Lebron James. There is still only one Lebron, one D-Rose, one Kobe, one Wade, one Howard...

king4day
05-17-2011, 10:45 AM
^^^ I see it as, if you are a team like Charlotte or Milwaukee that can't sign a superstar, you just need to work on getting a star like Gay or Johnson (not for his price) and defensive players to put around them.

I get what your saying about overpaying and that's what would be the new thing that separates good teams from bad. GM's will be more relevant.
The Suns wasting money on Warrick and Childress for the sake of adding players after losing Amar'e is a pure example of bad GM work (even though we didn't have a GM and it was our owner who did it).

So a team like Charlotte would have to work on getting a player like Gay, and then add defensive pieces like a Battier, or Artest and so forth.

I think Atlanta felt Joe Johnson was their only hope at a star, so they overspent. Maybe their owner/GM is content with playing well enough to bring in revenue and that's it.

SteBO
05-17-2011, 10:48 AM
^^^ I see it as, if you are a team like Charlotte or Milwaukee that can't sign a superstar, you just need to work on getting a star like Gay or Johnson to put around them.

I get what your saying about overpaying and that's what would be the new thing that separates good teams from bad. GM's will be more relevant.
The Suns wasting money on Warrick and Childress for the sake of adding players after losing Amar'e is a pure example of bad GM work (even though we didn't have a GM and it was our owner who did it).

So a team like Charlotte would have to work on getting a player like Gay, and then add defensive pieces like a Battier, or Artest and so forth.

I think Atlanta felt Joe Johnson was their only hope at a star, so they overspent. Maybe their owner/GM is content with playing well enough to bring in revenue and that's it.

That was exactly the case with Joe Johnson. It doesn't put them in a great position though when you consider that his age, and they'll likely have to pay 20 million per year or so when he's in his mid-30's, but that was indeed the thought process at the time. It's okay for business, but it isn't the brightest move in a basketball sense in the near future.

It's this that forces the smaller markets to have to build through the draft to be competitive, and that isn't an easy thing to do by any means. Memphis did a wonderful job in that regard, and Oklahoma City did a admirable job as well.

daleja424
05-17-2011, 12:38 PM
There really is only two ways to win. You either have to go out and get a superstar (control your own fate like Miami, LA, NY, Boston have done) OR you have to rely on having a bad season and getting lucky (like OKC, Chiacgo, Cleveland).

Why is it that we see it as okay for a team to luck into a franchise players but hold it against teams when they go out and get them?

The only way that a small market is going to be a winner is to get lucky in the draft lottery and then get lucky that there is a franchise player available that year. That does not change with a hard cap.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2011, 02:37 PM
The ratings draw that broke the record had to do with the buzz surrounding Miami's star players and the Bulls as a big market championship caliber team. Put those 2 together and you get a great rating.

DMasta718
05-17-2011, 03:42 PM
Simply put, look at a list of NBA cities... I'm sure that 5-6 of them will jump out at you as highly more desirable places to live than the rest (Chicago, Miami, NY, Boston, LA, and Dallas come to mind off the bat for me).

You can even squeeze Houston in there as well.

tbone2171
05-17-2011, 03:50 PM
Credit: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/watch/2011/05/bulls-win-over-miami-tnt-highest-rated-nba-game-cable-history


For as many people who say superteams hurt the NBA, they only help it. There may be less teams in small markets that aren't doing well, but when masses of people are in cities like NY, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami and Chicago, people tune in.

For example, Minnesota is a very small media market and has a smaller percentage of people than New York. If their team stinks or even if the team is rescinded, it won't matter, because the 8 million people in New York will make up for it.

Hopefully we see Howard, Paul and even a Kevin Love make the big market teams stronger - it will only lead to more revenue and ratings success for the NBA.

Twin Cities metro area population is 3 million...hardly a very small media market.

Punk
05-17-2011, 03:54 PM
I don't think people say they hurt the NBA's profits or popularity... it's just ****** for the general fan in a small market when they know their team will never EVER be able to compete for a ring, barring a miracle run. Parity is ruined, the NBA's profits are not.

Lol Please. Memphis and OKC are examples of BUILDING a winning product the right way. San Antonio is another small market. I guess they never competed for a ring.

Fact is small market teams suck at producing winning basketball and finding ways to win. Utah loved their Okur, Boozer combo and it didn't get them far instead of trading for a legit big or signing one.

Owners shouldn't blame anyone but themselves.

tbone2171
05-17-2011, 03:56 PM
How do you fail to see it? Ratings were up substantially ALL YEAR. Do you really think the league makes money off of team like Minnesota? NO. The money in this league is made in the big markets. When the big markets are interesting, the league thrives. The golden ages in NBA basketball have historically been when there were superteams (Bulls, Lakers, Celtics) NOT when there was parody.

Wtf are you talking about? A Shakespeare play? Ohhh...you meant parity.

shep33
05-17-2011, 04:07 PM
Yeah, its true. As a Laker fan, I feel bad for small market teams. Superteams always draw ratings. Boston vs. LA had great ratings, the highest for an NBA Final game since game 6 1998.

daleja424
05-17-2011, 05:47 PM
Wtf are you talking about? A Shakespeare play? Ohhh...you meant parity.

lol...yes...that! :facepalm: