Could the success of the San Antonio Spurs be the worst thing to happen to the NBA since Michael Jordan retired? Worse than the brawl, worse than the lockout, worse than the television contract? Maybe not; but the Spurs’ four championships certainly have been far from good for the league.
There is no question that the Spurs are a great team, one that is the most successful of this decade. To use the typical praise given to the four-time champions, they have good character, play as a team, and play fundamental basketball (avoiding the act that apparently makes James Naismith cry ? dunking). However, there is no question that the Spurs are almost single-handedly responsible for four years of terrible ratings for the NBA?s marquee event ? the NBA Finals.
1999
The ratings for the 1999 NBA Finals cannot fairly be blamed on the Spurs, though they are the start of a disturbing trend surrounding the league?s most successful team. The 1998 Finals drew an 18.7 rating, an impossible number to approach for any possible match-up.
That being said, the Spurs? plodding, boring 4-1 victory over the moribund #8 seed New York Knicks did not help matters. And while the Knicks were equally as responsible for the quality of play (as each of the Spurs? opponents have been), the fact remains that ratings declined 40% from 1998 ? a decline that went far beyond simply not being able to approach amazing numbers from the year before.
The series did draw an 11.3 average (virtually impossible for any NBA Finals match-up to approach now) ? possibly a signal of the overall strength of the NBA at that time, and the relatively limited amount of other entertainment options compared to 2007.
2003
In 2003, the Spurs played the New Jersey Nets in a laughably bad NBA Finals. Several factors played into how unpleasant the 2003 series was; it was ABC?s first year televising the NBA, and their broadcast team was Brad Nessler, Tom Tolbert and Bill Walton ? a murderer?s row of terrible broadcasting. Many fans were likely not used to the heavy cable set-up of the 2003 playoffs; it was the first year that the Conference Finals were on cable, and there were no prime-time games on network television leading up to the Finals.
Still, anyone who managed to find the games could not have been happy with what they saw. Each game was poorly played, with very low shooting percentages and very low scores. That simply compounded the fact that the two teams were San Antonio and New Jersey, two cities that far from inspired anyone to tune in; the New York market was less than enthusiastic about the presence of the Nets.
Ratings were down significantly from 2002, and set a record-low to that point. The series averaged a 6.5 rating in prime-time, the lowest since 1981. Game 2 drew a 5.2 rating, and the highest rated game drew a mere 7.5. No game drew 10 million viewers. The series was viewed as a stunning travesty; sportswriters took the opportunity to lambaste what the game had become ? a mockery of basketball with scores barely higher than life expectancy and lifeless basketball from both sides.
2005
After the Lakers/Pistons series in 2004 saw ratings increase to the highest levels since 2001, ratings for the NBA dropped significantly again in 2005.
The 2005 Finals came after a year of major declines for the playoffs; the Lakers did not make the playoffs that year, meaning that the NBA?s biggest draw since Jordan retired could not be counted on for guaranteed high ratings. The Pacers/Pistons brawl set in motion the anti-hip-hop movement currently gripping the league by the throat, and very few were truly interested in watching the Miami Heat stomp the Nets and Wizards on their way to the Conference Finals.
The night after the Pistons dispatched of the Heat in Game 7 of the East Finals, SportsCenter actually ran a segment where host Dan Patrick asked analyst Ric Bucher for ten reasons why people should watch the series. Add that to the labor strife the NBA was undergoing at that time, and there was no juice for the series between the previous two NBA champions.
The first four games were atrocious, four uncompetitive blowouts that marred the series and hurt any hope of good numbers. However, for as bad as the first four games were, Games 5 and 6 were arguably two of the best NBA Finals games this decade, and Game 7 was tied at the end of the fourth quarter. The series drew a 7.6 rating through six games, but was helped by an 11.9 rating for Game 7 ? which bumped the rating up to an average of 8.2. Even though the series was decent, the ratings were down 23% from the previous year.
2007
2007, like 2005, 2003 and 1999 before it, will be remembered as a year when NBA ratings plummeted to the point where people were wondering if the game needed saving ? where games were so ugly and unwatchable that even hardcore basketball fans tuned out. Not coincidentally, each one of those years involved the team of this decade, the San Antonio Spurs. Each year in the Finals, they have won ugly ? at the expense of the success of the league as a whole.
The 2007 Finals came on the heels of poor ratings throughout the regular season and playoffs. However, many expected the ratings to be at the very least decent, thanks to the presence of superstar Cavaliers player LeBron James. James was coming off of a transcendent performance against the Detroit Pistons, and ratings for the final two games of the Eastern Conference Finals were 4.0 and 4.9, respectively ? with the latter being one of the few NBA Playoff games that year to see a year-to-date increase.
Unfortunately for the NBA, any momentum the ratings had was stymied when the Spurs shut down James and the Cavaliers quickly. Game 1 drew a 6.3 rating, the lowest ever for a Game 1. Game 2 fell to a 5.6, getting trounced by the series finale of The Sopranos. Game 3 drew a 6.4 rating, and as of this writing the rating for Game 4 is unavailable.
The basketball was ugly and terrible to watch, as in the three previous Spurs title runs before it, and casual and hardcore NBA fans alike tuned out.
Conclusion.
The San Antonio Spurs must be considered a historically great team; after all, they have won four titles in nine years. And while that is not debatable, the fact is that their success has been a detriment for the NBA, at least on domestic television.
The Spurs play in the #37 market in the U.S., automatically a strike against them in terms of television ratings. Add to that their lack of charismatic players, the fact that they play a methodical, unexciting style of basketball, and the fact that most of America could truly care less about them, and they become ratings poison each and every time they arrive on the big stage. Through the first 21 NBA Finals games played by the San Antonio Spurs, only five have drawn double-digit ratings: Games 1, 3, 4 and 5 in 1999 and Game 7 in 2005. In other words, sixteen NBA Finals games involving the Spurs have drawn less than 10% of the national audience. In fact, none of those sixteen games even drew a 9 rating. Seven of the Spurs? 21 NBA Finals games have drawn less than a 6.7 rating.
The fourteen lowest-rated NBA Finals games involved the San Antonio Spurs ? an amazing stat that does not count the rating for Game 4 between the Spurs and Cavaliers. In fact, one could venture to say that outside of the Spurs, the NBA is doing fine in the television ratings ? unfortunately for the league, San Antonio simply keeps winning.
And if San Antonio continues winning, what will happen to the NBA? This series was proof positive ? people will not watch the Spurs. While it should be pointed out that part of the reason why ratings were so low was because the games were uncompetitive, it is hard to imagine the numbers being any higher even if all four games were close as they were in Games 3 and 4.
Thankfully for the league, the Spurs have not won their four titles consecutively. In 2000, 2004 and 2006, ratings increased for the Finals. That being said, how long can the NBA expect to simply recover from horrible numbers like the ones incurred this year? The league bounced back from a 6.5 to an 11.5 in 2004, but the increase from ’05 to ’06 was much smaller — from 8.2 to 8.5. How long before apathy regarding the omnipresent Spurs turns into apathy regarding the league as a whole? How low will ratings for the Finals go if the Spurs continue making it to the championship round? How long before the league has to bounce back from a 5 average for the Finals? From a 4 average?
The NBA needs the Spurs to start failing, and fast. Unfortunately, Tim Duncan is young and healthy, and the team is set up quite well for the future. And by the time this dynasty is over, the NBA may be beyond repair.
