Bingo! Let's see what the ratings will be like for Cavs vs Warriors 4 now that the Durant winning a championship novelty has worn off. It's the only reason I watched game 5. Next year? I won't give a rats ***.
General NBA Discussion
- Thread starter Bodie The Cursed
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Bingo! Let's see what the ratings will be like for Cavs vs Warriors 4 now that the Durant winning a championship novelty has worn off. It's the only reason I watched game 5. Next year? I won't give a rats ***.
Silver's comments after the finals seem to be quite positive. He seems to think the so,union is that the rest of the league needs to get better, not that the Warriors are a bad thing for the league. Though, that could just be his post-finals spin for the media.
Also, I don't think the Cavs are the 2nd best team, so to me the league isn't just Cavs and the Warriors. It may look that was because the Cavs have the biggest star, and they are the best in the east.
What if LeBron heads to the Spurs in a year?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Warriors have Bird Rights to players they have under contact, so they can exceed to cap re-signing them. They cannot go over the cap acquiring a player from another team. So to get Blake they'd need to trade a current player (or players) with comparable contracts. Do you think they'll trade one of their four stars for a Blake? They don't have any other chips with big contracts to trade...beside, the Clips aren't going to trade Blake for Patrick McCaw or Ian Clark.
The only other way Blake gets to the Warriors is if he joins as a free agent for one of the vet contract exemptions. So he could join if he's cool with only $5M a year or a minimum contact.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Shawpaw
Super Freak
If there is a will, there is a way. Blake Griffin would join them in FA. GS would cut one of their bigs to make roster spot. It's not that inconceivable. There would be no need for trades. Just accept the idea that players can join almost any team he wants to during FA.
I hope GS gets Blake Griffin and Jimmy Butler. Can you imagine the perfection?
That very well could be true. I wasn't a big fan of the Bulls runs because they were so dominant. That being said lots of people watch the Bulls finals. So I don't know, maybe casual fans do like these dominant teams. I mean who really watches NCCA women's basketball? But when UCON wins 1,000 games in a row they get lots of non fans watching and lots of media coverage.
I understand why you guys don't like it...I'm just wondering if you guys don't really represent the rest of society. I think dominant teams may bring in far more casual fans than you guys think. I could be completely wrong, but that's my theory.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That bandwagon tho...
So you think they'd get rid of Klay, Steph, Draymond, or KD for Blake(or Butler)? Why would they do that? I can't see that making them better, only worse.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
BurningRage
Super Freak
Super teams are bad unless it's your home team.
I know I've felt that in the past (Bulls), but NBA viewership doesn't seem to support it. How is that explained? Just playing devil's advocate.
Didn't the LeBron Heat also boost NBA viewership?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Nteresting article I found on the subject-
ABC, ESPN, and TNT saw NBA viewership decline slightly in the 2016-17 regular season, the first covered under a multi-billion-dollar contract extension between the league and its television partners that reaches through 2024-25.
National NBA telecasts across the three channels and cable network NBA TV averaged 1.19 million total viewers for the season ending on Wednesday — down 6% from the 2015-16 season, but even with the average from 2014-15. Under a new television deal, the three networks combined to broadcast 19 more games than last season.
The addition of more than a dozen and a half games — including 11 Monday-night games on TNT, which did not have a Monday-night telecast in 2015-16 — contributed to the downward tick in viewership. TNT, for example, averaged 1.5 million viewers, down 8% from last season. But when discounting the new Monday-night games, TNT was even with last season’s 1.7 million. (The additional games far outpaced the entertainment programming that TNT aired on comparable Monday nights last season.) Disney-owned ESPN and ABC averaged 1.9 million viewers, down 5% from last season, when they aired eight less games combined.
Increases in streaming viewership also contributed to television decreases. ESPN digital platforms averaged 45,000 viewers per minute, up 18% from 38,000 last season.
The 6% decline across networks was also in line with a general downward trend in live sports viewing, one that was compounded by last year’s presidential election campaign and the subsequent news cycles, which drove eyeballs to cable news programming. Viewership for the NFL, which has become accustomed to regular year-to-year growth, was down 8% in 2016 from the previous season. Network executives have also groused about the impact of NBA teams resting star players in late-season games — and removing the top attractions from telecasts.
Under a new contract that went into effect this season, ESPN, which produces the ABC telecasts, and TNT are paying a combined $2.66 billion per year to broadcast NBA games.
Heading into the playoffs, which begin Saturday, league and network officials can draw encouragement from high ratings for the NBA’s premiere regular-season events, including opening night and All-Star Game telecasts that were the most watched since 2013.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
ABC, ESPN, and TNT saw NBA viewership decline slightly in the 2016-17 regular season, the first covered under a multi-billion-dollar contract extension between the league and its television partners that reaches through 2024-25.
National NBA telecasts across the three channels and cable network NBA TV averaged 1.19 million total viewers for the season ending on Wednesday — down 6% from the 2015-16 season, but even with the average from 2014-15. Under a new television deal, the three networks combined to broadcast 19 more games than last season.
The addition of more than a dozen and a half games — including 11 Monday-night games on TNT, which did not have a Monday-night telecast in 2015-16 — contributed to the downward tick in viewership. TNT, for example, averaged 1.5 million viewers, down 8% from last season. But when discounting the new Monday-night games, TNT was even with last season’s 1.7 million. (The additional games far outpaced the entertainment programming that TNT aired on comparable Monday nights last season.) Disney-owned ESPN and ABC averaged 1.9 million viewers, down 5% from last season, when they aired eight less games combined.
Increases in streaming viewership also contributed to television decreases. ESPN digital platforms averaged 45,000 viewers per minute, up 18% from 38,000 last season.
The 6% decline across networks was also in line with a general downward trend in live sports viewing, one that was compounded by last year’s presidential election campaign and the subsequent news cycles, which drove eyeballs to cable news programming. Viewership for the NFL, which has become accustomed to regular year-to-year growth, was down 8% in 2016 from the previous season. Network executives have also groused about the impact of NBA teams resting star players in late-season games — and removing the top attractions from telecasts.
Under a new contract that went into effect this season, ESPN, which produces the ABC telecasts, and TNT are paying a combined $2.66 billion per year to broadcast NBA games.
Heading into the playoffs, which begin Saturday, league and network officials can draw encouragement from high ratings for the NBA’s premiere regular-season events, including opening night and All-Star Game telecasts that were the most watched since 2013.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bulls didn't face the same team 4 times in a row in the Finals. I'm not hating on GS. I just don't want to see GS vs CLE 4, 5, or 6 years in a row.
That'd be super lame
Good point. Maybe the Celtics can step up this year?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Shawpaw
Super Freak
They not getting rid of any of the role players. Them adding Griffin doesn't mean one of the most leaves. Just someone like zaza. Those guys will all take less to have superteam. Hell, bring CP3 and Paul George. Would be so awesome to have them all play together
Shawpaw
Super Freak
Celts could be good but they need another superstar to really make a lot of noise.
It's just not possible unless Steph or KD sign for $5M a year or something crazy. The Warriors were $13M over the cap this year even with Steph being VERY underpaid. I don't think Steph or KD are going to work for league minimums or exemptions. Even if Steph signs for $5M next year, they are still $8M over the 2017 cap.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Celtics are much farther away from being true contenders than a superstar
The Clown Prince of Crime
Super Freak
Bron shaved his head finally 
Bald = rings
Bald = rings
I think they could challenge the Cavs with a Superstar addition.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thomas, Al and an unnamed superstar...nah.
They need to change that line up to have a shot
They need to change that line up to have a shot
Similar threads
