Taking the Measure of NBA Finals Television Ratings Written by the stat sprocket on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 One reasonably accurate way to think about the overall health of the NBA is through analysis of the average television ratings for the Finals. Higher ratings mean more fans and more money for the owners and subsequently the players. Over the past 31 years the Finals’ broadcasts have averaged a 12.5 rating. This means that on average 12.5% of all U.S. households able to receive television signals (regardless of source) watched the NBA finals. To place this number in context, the average NBA finals game over the last 31 years would rank fifth on this television season’s ranking of top rated programs, just a bit behind Dancing with the Stars (Is this a weird country or what?). (Click to continue reading)
Very nice work. Its nice to read about the business side of the game. I'm surprised by a few things. 1. how low even the highest rated NBA Finals are 2. that there isn't a larger gap between small and large market teams 3. how high the Superbowl ratings are. I knew they were high, but a 49.1 rating. Wow, that's impressive.
Superbowls are amazing. A one day one time event lets people play ahead, have big parties, etc. It's a relatively small time commitment compared to watching a series too.
Are you trying to say the large media city match-ups aren't as sexy as perported to be? Why that's sacrilege! Blasphemer!
If you were a network, would you rather get a 40+ rating or 7 nights of 15 rating? The Superbowl ratings would be a lot lower if it were a 7 game series. To me, it's like baseball. Each game isn't much during the regular season, but when you add 165 games worth, then the revenue is enough to pay those players enormous sums of money. Of course the NBA has higher ratings when exciting players and big market teams make it there. But they are playing with fire if they manipulate the process to make that happen. The best thing they can do for themselves is appear transparent and hype the teams that are most likely to make it to the end. That would be the Spurs/Mavs and... Pistons/Heat/ Magic...? The worst thing they can do is change the rules of the game and the way it's called to get their already hyped players to the dance. That is how conspiracy theories linger.
I agree it's a major factor, perhaps the major one. Lots of people will watch one game of a sport they are kind of interested in, but a lot fewer will watch six. Especially when you can plan for it months in advance.
TaS, consider the NFC and AFC title games as part of the SB series. I think the numbers for those are strong too. Two games over 2 days.
The last Superbowl was one of the worst ratings wise on record - 40 rating / 60 share. I think a typical conference final runs in the mid 20s - still making them top rated shows. But, the same problems still hold I think - one game for each conference and at a time you could plan on when the season started.
Some interesting blog posts on ABC vs. NBC coverage. Sports Media Watch: The ABCs of ruining the NBA, Part 1. Sports Media Watch: The ABCs of ruining the NBA, Part II
The Nets would have higher ratings if they didn't play in that dreary, depressing %%%%hole in the Meadowlands. The same applies to Cleveland, which doesn't even have the potential advantage of the New York and Philadelphia markets behind it. Also, the second article roscoe36 just posted is dead-on, and unfortunately the camera 'innovations' are being copied by many local producers. And however idiotic and uninformed Al Michaels may have been, his speaking style was less alienating behind a microphone than the snidely sanctimonious pomposity that his successor from MSG brings to the table.
