Why Celtics Vs Lakers only scored 8% viewing rate?

[Celtsfan1980]

Because no one outside of Laker fan or Celtic fan gives a rats behind.

There are no story lines really. Everyone outside of Laker and Celtic fan thinks both teams were built because they were "given" players to put them over the top. Boston added two HOF'ers for Al Jefferson and Jeff Green. I mean good for them, but it's not like the rags to riches story the networks keep pushing at us. I don't really feel the need to mention Pau for the garbage the Lakers were able to trade them.

All I remember hearing was how the Ray Allen trade was horrible on Ainge's part, but today people are claiming the exact opposite. It's a little comical if you ask me. The Black Sox scandal almost ruined baseball, and the ref scandal could have had big repercussions for the NBA. I think the ratings have been very good considering everything and considering Boston did have a 24-point lead at one point.

[Jack wore plaid]

-= original quote snipped =-


All I remember hearing was how the Ray Allen trade was horrible on Ainge's part, but today people are claiming the exact opposite. It's a little comical if you ask me. The Black Sox scandal almost ruined baseball, and the ref scandal could have had big repercussions for the NBA. I think the ratings have been very good considering everything and considering Boston did have a 24-point lead at one point.

If the Celtics don't win this season it was a bad trade.

The ratings suck because you probably wouldn't watch the Knicks vs the Clippers in the finals. The two biggest tv markets, but no one outside those markets cares about either team. Another thing to consider is the fact that the NBA has done such a wonderful job of marketing world wide that they have sort of forgotten to consentrate on marketing in America.

The NBA is still trying to come out of the tattoo era. Most people don't relate to multi-millionaires who dress like thugs and have their way with whoever and whatever they want.

There are also no "personalities" in this finals. Shaq is funny, and quotable. Kobe is scripted and hated by most of America. The Celtics are boring to listen to. (not a slam, just an opinion)

The Lakers whine and moan about fouls, which turns people off.

These are some of the reasons I think the ratings are low.

The league needsa an up and coming team i.e. the Hawks, Blazers to upset teams and get to the finals against the Celtics or the Lakers. That would make for much better tv. Everybody likes Davis vs Goliath, as well as the two best. Only this year the two best were sort of given, instead of built.

[Nuzzo]

Why did the Championship in 1978-1981 draw such low ratings?
Games on tape delay.

[gusman]

I refuse to watch this series because the NBA is fixed and I was already as upset as I am know about it 4 years ago. I was kicked out a an NBA locker room for telling everyone the NBA was fixed.

[DDV]

[quote="Jack wore plaid"][/quote]

good point

as i said i also beleive that expansion and salary cap has hurt the product in that you cant really have all time great teams anymore in the finals like u did in the 80's

most teams now have maybe one star one or two other good to ok plaeyrs and trash around them which makes it hard for teams to score especially against good defenses..

i msis seeing those loaded teams face each other

[tha_rock220]

It can be summed up in one word......ABC.

Why in the hell did the all knowing David Stern end the NBA on NBC???

[Celtsfan1980]

[quote="Jack wore plaid"][/quote]
I disagree. The Celtics, Lakers, and Knicks are the three teams that can draw more viewers. A Knicks-Lakers with Lebron and Kobe is the only series which could draw more viewers than Boston-LA. Phoenix may be able to draw some viewers, and I think Portland possibly if Oden lives up to his potential. The Pistons could draw viewers as well. You put just about any other teams against each other, and the ratings would dud. Even if you put the Lakers or Celtics in against a lesser known team, it likely won't draw. The NBA has ruined its product and these scandals will do even more to hurt it. These are about as good for ratings as they can draw for the next 20 years, so I'd be very happy if I was the NBA.

[isekii]

it's the Vagining of the NBA.

Crap Ref calls, pussified stars complaining about ticky tacky fouls.

we need the old nba back. hard fouls, play through injuries etc..

The players can't even show any emotions without being T'd up.

[snaquille oatmeal]

lol at people that think that the "rilvary" should have brought up the ratings.

there is no rilvary between this two teams.

Kobe, Cassell, Pierce are friends
the Laker Euros didn't know about Boston/Lakers history till last week
KG lives in Malibu
Luke Walton loves the Celtics
Pierce loves the Lakers

yeah that tension is gonna bring in TV viewers

[Trifecta7]

Game 3 was the highest rating out of all the games so far, but it's still not matching the previous Finals: NBA.com

Game 1: 8.7
Game 2: 8.5
Game 3: 9.2

NEW YORK, June 11 (AP) -- Game 3 of the NBA Finals drew the highest television ratings of the series.

The Lakers' 87-81 win Tuesday night earned a 9.2 rating on ABC, the network said Wednesday. That's up 44 percent from the 6.4 last year for Spurs-Cavaliers.

It was the highest rating for a Game 3 since Lakers-Pistons in 2004 drew a 10.5.

Game 1 on Thursday night earned an 8.7, and Game 2 on Sunday night had an 8.5.

The rating is the percentage watching a program among homes with televisions.

[Joseph17]

Because the NBA simply isn't as good as it used to be. Is it just me or does it keep getting worse and worse? I don't find it as entertaining as it used to be. Even though the Lakers vs. Celtics series hasn't been that bad, the rest of the playoffs were pretty boring. The only interesting game we had was the Suns vs. Spurs.

[ripthecord]

reviving the NBA doesnt happen in 1 night. From Last years 6 to game 2, 8.5 to game 3 9.2 is already impressive. It will go up for Game 4 as wel. Its hard to recover from that boring spurs cavs series last year. there was no hero. now there is and his name is sasha vujacic.

[Minge]

It can be summed up in one word......ABC.

Why in the hell did the all knowing David Stern end the NBA on NBC???

THE NBA ON NBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLb-Dt-jreI

1991 BULLS VS LAKERS 15.8 (Michael Jordan)
1992 BULLS VS BLAZERS 14.2 (Michael Jordan)
1993 BULLS VS SUNS 17.9 (Michael Jordan)
1994 ROCKETS VS KNICKS 12.4 (Hakeem Olajuwon)
1995 ROCKETS VS MAGIC 13.9 (Hakeem Olajuwon)
1996 BULLS VS SONICS 16.7 (Michael Jordan)
1997 BULLS VS JAZZ 16.8 (Michael Jordan)
1998 BULLS VS JAZZ 18.7 (Michael Jordan)
1999 SPURS VS KNICKS 11.3 (Tim Duncan)
2000 LAKERS VS PACERS 11.6 (Shaquille O'Neal)
2001 LAKERS VS SIXERS 12.1 (Shaquille O'Neal)
2002 LAKERS VS NETS 10.2 (Shaquille O'Neal)

Just look at those television ratings. Those were the days.

[Rerisen]

Even the Knicks/Rockets is holding up pretty good there! Without exactly a ton of highlight performers, and Starks throwing balls over the rim.

[hsb]

It can be summed up in one word......ABC.

Why in the hell did the all knowing David Stern end the NBA on NBC???

THE NBA ON NBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLb-Dt-jreI

1991 BULLS VS LAKERS 15.8 (Michael Jordan)
1992 BULLS VS BLAZERS 14.2 (Michael Jordan)
1993 BULLS VS SUNS 17.9 (Michael Jordan)
1994 ROCKETS VS KNICKS 12.4 (Hakeem Olajuwon)
1995 ROCKETS VS MAGIC 13.9 (Hakeem Olajuwon)
1996 BULLS VS SONICS 16.7 (Michael Jordan)
1997 BULLS VS JAZZ 16.8 (Michael Jordan)
1998 BULLS VS JAZZ 18.7 (Michael Jordan)
1999 SPURS VS KNICKS 11.3 (Tim Duncan)
2000 LAKERS VS PACERS 11.6 (Shaquille O'Neal)
2001 LAKERS VS SIXERS 12.1 (Shaquille O'Neal)
2002 LAKERS VS NETS 10.2 (Shaquille O'Neal)

Just look at those television ratings. Those were the days.

Jordan was king. The league should stop marketing stars and focus on the teams.

[Kobay]

what was last year's mavs vs.warriors rating?

[Kevlo_911]

What a GREAT vid.