the 2006 NBA Finals posted a 8.5 Neilson rating. The 3rd lowest since 1982 and only barely beat last seasons 8.2 rating. The Pistons/Lakers 2004 rating of 11.5 ranks as the highest over the past 5 Finals.

Amazing thing is in 1998 the Bulls/Jazz netted a 18.7 rating so viewing is down almost a 3rd since then. No wonder why they are trying to turn Wade into Jordan. The fans are apparently and quit literally not buying it though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...ielsen_ratings

Thanks for the link Max

Either NBA fans don't like the announcers and show that ABC puts on or the Lakers with their star power of Magic/Kareem, Shaq/Kobe or the Bulls Jordan/Pippen need to play for the casual fan to tune in. You are right the NBA needs a superstar ala Jordan to get the average Joe to watch. Just imagine the ratings if heat plays lakers next year or the Cavs play the lakers.

It looks like there are some bigger issues going on here. Looking at the chart it almost appears that the NBA has not brought all the fans back in since the lockout. The Pistons team concept gave them decent ratings in 04 and you also have to consider that most of those games were blowouts.

To me ABC came across as a snow job. Something did not seem kosher about their constant praise for Wade and all the ensuing calls he got. Either Wade is not the superstar people want or fans are looking for something else that has been lacking.

i think its because there are no more true rivalries. players change teams so often that nobody cares about them anymore.
guys like stockton, reggie, ewing, admiral, magic, bird, jordan all played with 1 team their entire lives. people get to recognise them and the team they play for, and the rivalries build up, not just between players but cities as well.
too many trades, too much roster shuffling has damaged the casual fans ability to follow whats going on i think.

also the mavs and heat were 2 new-comers to the finals arena.

This is true. When the last dynasty ( Lakers ) fell so did the ratings.

Its also easy to blame it in ABC, especially Hubies play by play guy Mike Breen. But if you notice the ratings were low for the entire post-season according the that article.

Something is not right. Either they are not showing the games that people want to see or people are just not as interested in the NBA.

NBA broadcast ratings declines are part of the bigger overall decline in network viewing. Overall, broadcast network news program ratings are down nearly 60% since 1969, 34% in the last ten years.

Sports programming is no different. To have an event hold its own over past years is pretty much a victory in today's climate. The Superbowl lost audience this year versus last. Golf ratings (still haven't figured out why anyone would watch golf anyway) have fallen 38-50% over the past five years. NCAA tourny ratings are down, from around a 22 rating fifteen years ago to low teens lately. The World series has fallen nearly a third.

The NBA in particular has suffered from the split between cable and broadcast. Since the move to ABC far fewer games have been shown on broadcast, too few to enable an audience to develop. The audience has been developed on cable but then the switch to ABC comes and things don't work as well.

There is too much competition from other media, too much from extended sports seasons with lots of overlap, etc.

__________________
"But first, are you experienced? Or have you you ever been experienced? Well, I have."
Jimi

Interesting take but 2004 was a decent year for the NBA. Cable has been around for over 20 years and been popular for the past 15 years or so.
There are probably not that many more homes pct wise that have cable now as compared to 1998 when the Bulls netted a near 19 point rating.

Cable is still up from then, but I think the point is that those without do not get a chance to develop a following for the game with only a handful of games showing up on broadcast. Cable has been a great cash cow for the league, but still doesn't hit everyone. If you alienate even a third of the market, it can be tough to get them back come playoff time.

And, even though cable penetration was decent in the late 90s, broadcast still had far and away the majority of the audience. I think it was 2003 that cable audience grew larger than broadcast - partly because they signed up more HHs, mostly because they started producing their own content, at or near network quality.

__________________
"But first, are you experienced? Or have you you ever been experienced? Well, I have."
Jimi