Should Heat be taken off National TV? (merged threads)

[Nuggetsfanduh98]

The average fan probably can't name more than 1 player on the Hornets, let alone the Blazers.

But, they probably do know who Wade, Shaq, & LeBron are.

Plain and simple. --- You can pout, whine and moan all you want, but until the NBA goes the other way, get used to the Heat playing on your TV.

I bet Next year The'll be going the other way!

[Anticon]

This idea of the star's league is so damn frustrating. I think the NBA is really underestimating its audience, both basketball educated and not.

This is one of those situations where making your priority the integrity of the game is likely the best thing economically as well - but where the front office needs to take a leap of faith they're not comfortable making to get there.

This is an excellent post.

The NBA markets down to their fans, while the NFL markets up. The one team that generated the most excitement of last season - the Warriors - aren't receiving anywhere near the publicity they should.

The NBA just needs to publicize good teams, not stars they think an audience uninterested in basketball will appreciate. The post-Jordan, one on one emphasis has really exhausted itself; if the game is to move on in terms of popularity (not that it hasn't always been third, but it used to be bigger in many ways) it needs to play to its strengths, not to some impression that fans only want to see big stars make big plays.

Let people begin enjoying the game again, and then the fans and ratings return. Having he Lakers and Celtics back, and hopefully eventually the Knicks and the 76ers, will give the league a big boost. Having weak teams in 4 of your biggest markets has reduced interest substantially.

[Falstaff]

[quote="Anticon"][/quote]

Absolutely agree on the post-Jordan point. The NBA has got to realize they can't anticipate another Michael Jordan. The reason the league became so popular when he was playing wasn't because marketing stars works better. It's because Jordan was the confluence of once in a generation talent AND a great, great team. People watched because they wanted to see Jordan play AND see a great game. The league was lucky because while Jordan always won, it was still always competitive and exciting.

Bulls vs. Knicks series were great.

Bulls vs. Jazz were great as well.

And Bulls vs. Suns was a great match-up too.

Props have to be given to the competition of the Bulls dynasty era. Without those excellent competitors, the Jordan era would have been a bore because his domination would have been too easy.

They key here is that GREAT basketball was being played, and there was also a star that people could focus on.

But the NBA simply cannot manufacture that kind of success. In order to see that reoccur, they must focus on making the games themselves great to watch, and then bring the focus in on the stars who emerge from those great games.

In short, we need Celtics vs. Lakers or Bulls vs. Knicks (ie - great teams squaring off who may have stars), not Kobe vs. Lebron or DWade (ie - stars who happen to play on teams).

[AKBlazerFan]

Does someone have the nnumber of each time a team gets National TV? I remember seeing it early in the season, and was so happy cause the Blazers got so many because of Oden I swear to god there are like 8 teams that get 50% of all the games. Its sickening.

[Kosta]

I have a soluition to the problem. When the Heat or the Cavs are on, I simply don't watch, It's not basketball anyway when one of those two teams is involved. Why wants to watch LeBron and or DWade playing by one set of rules while everyone else is playing by another set?

Same, unless the Cavs are playing someone entertaining. The Heat stink and they shouldn't garner any attention, let alone national television exposure.

The worst team in the league has more games on ESPN/TNT than most current playoff teams.

[Anticon]

Yeah, check out this excellent article on the post-Jordan era from just after Iverson asked to be traded.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/sp...raton.html

I think in general, the league is going in the right direction, but marketing plans do need to be altered to adjust to that. Part of it was that the teams that were good - and were genuine teams - were Detroit and San Antonio, and no one wanted to watch them. I think Portland is a team to watch for the confluence you talk about, perhaps Boston now and Seattle and Cleveland eventually.

But I also think that fans like to see teams, even without a star. Golden State was easily the most exciting thing in the NBA in years, easily up there with Shaq and Wade. So the league needs to push teams like that, and perhaps even try to adjust things (ie back to a 5 game first round or have a pre-playoff qualifying tournament) so that there are more upsets and unexpected victories.

That's one reason why the NFL schedule works so well; there are always unexpected victories each week, which end up seeming like a bigger deal than they are. Upsets in the NBA usually happen on a Wednesday in January, and people typically forget about them.

There are also a bunch of other changes to be made to help teams re-build - less guaranteed years, more cap exceptions, salary adjustments to make trades easier that would get things moving again.

[Harry Heinous]

This idea of the star's league is so damn frustrating. I think the NBA is really underestimating its audience, both basketball educated and not.

It's silly to prioritize names over good basketball. People may tune in to see Lebron, but if the game isn't entertaining, then they'll be bored, and when that happens 20 times a season, they'll eventually lose interest in the sport as a whole. However, if they tune in and don't necessarily know a player, but get hooked by how good the game is, then they'll probably keep watching and will be more likely to watch another game they don't know much about.

Sure Lebron, Kobe, and DWade are well known, but why are they well known? Because all their games are on TV. If Chris Paul got 20 nationally televised games, everyone would know who he is, and he'd have shoes ads on billboards too.

And it's also probably worth saying that it doesn't seem like the current system is working that great anyway. Basketball seems to be getting less popular in comparison to football and baseball, and in my opinion that's because nationally televised games can't be counted on to be entertaining. Too often it's a matchup of stars on mediocre teams that play boring basketball, or a blowout by one star's really good team of another star's really crappy team. And I don't feel like that's the case with baseball and football. I'm not much of a fan of either, but I've tuned into games I knew nothing about and enjoyed them enough to want to come back for more.

This is one of those situations where making your priority the integrity of the game is likely the best thing economically as well - but where the front office needs to take a leap of faith they're not comfortable making to get there.

Great post, except for the bolded part.

Wade was completely slept on, until the 03-04 playoffs, where the rest of the nation got to see what he was all about.

Shaq instantly made Wade be more known, but it really boils down to what you do in the playoffs were all of the country is forced to watch. All it took was a few amazing playoff performances and Wade blew up.

Look at the Warriors, and what their great playoff performance last year has done for them and Baron Davis.

The regular season doesn't matter much, and people easily forget about games and performances during it. But in the playoffs, no one forgets.

And I have no doubt that this year, Chris Paul will finally gain the national attention he deserves in the playoffs.

[devwat12]

If you are a good team, you get rewarded the following season. It's not a very difficult concept. The NBA couldn't foresee New Orleans and Portland being this good. If they gambled and gave them a bunch of games and they ended up being .500 clubs, everybody would be bitching about that too. In a sense, the NBA can't win.

National TV games are geared for casual fans who are more interested in big name players and bandwagon teams. They want name recognition. Put on some games between small market clubs and their "team" ball and you will get low ratings. Guaranteed. You don't think the NBA does some research on what clubs get watched? If things were like this thread makes them out to be and nobody wanted to watch the Cavs, Heat, Bulls, Nuggets, etc., they wouldn't be on.

League Pass is for the hardcore fans who are more interested in the nuances of the game

[Falstaff]

[quote="Harry Heinous"][/quote]

Right, but that's exactly my point. No one knew who Wade was until he was on television. Then everyone followed him because he and his team played good ball.

So it ought to follow that the NBA should just broadcast the games most likely to be good ones, and the stars will shine because of it. Just like Wade did when the Miami run began.

[Flash3]

-= original quote snipped =-



Right, but that's exactly my point. No one knew who Wade was until he was on television. Then everyone followed him because he and his team played good ball.

So it ought to follow that the NBA should just broadcast the games most likely to be good ones, and the stars will shine because of it. Just like Wade did when the Miami run began.

Miami had ONE nationally televised game while Wade was becoming good.

Wade made a name for himself on his own with his play, tv really didn't do much except just give him more exposure, to an extent.

People already knew about Wade from all the talk that was going on post-all star break.