That article begins by reporting that Carmelo Anthony finally set a date to marry his fiancee, La La Vazquez, but concludes that:
Now, I'm not really a huge fan of the Winter Olympics. I much prefer the Summer version, but I'll watch the Winter games anyway because they're still the Olympics and I always pay attention. (I could write an entire blog post about why Summer > Winter, but that's for another day.) Whether you prefer one or the other is irrelevant. My point is that the NBA should not go head-to-head against the Olympics. Let me tell you why...[Setting a wedding date is as] good a storyline as any for the All-Star game, which had a washout of a dunk contest, and has been totally eclipsed by the Winter Olympics. The game itself is rarely memorable, but rather a glorified playground game without defense. And that's fine.
Someone will throw down a monster alley-oop, someone will start chucking threes like no one's business, and Charles Barkley will say something almost-controversial. These are things that will happen. And, up against pairs figure skating, maybe we'll watch.
First, David Stern announced that the NBA will lose $400 million this season. Accordingly, this is a great time to stir up interest in the league, especially in weaker basketball markets and in those cities that are about to lose superstars. Likewise, this is a bad time to lose viewers to people who are watching ski jumping. And you know what? Competing against the Winter Olympics, the NBA and its less-than-scintillating Slam Dunk Contest suffered a double-digit loss in ratings and viewership on NBA All-Star Saturday Night. Ouch.
Second, this year's All-Star Game was held in Cowboys Stadium. This venue allowed a record 108,713 fans to squint at a tiny basketball court, while intently following the largest 1080p screen ever built by man. This was not the time to produce a dud slam dunk contest, but it was the time to make a grand, over-the-top spectacle the only grand, over-the-top spectacle on TV this past holiday weekend.
The Winter Olympics, love them or hate them, draw big ratings...especially during opening weekend. Why would the NBA want to go up against them?! Consider that the team with the best record in the NBA -- the Cleveland Cavaliers -- went into the All-Star Break at 43-11. Thus, the LeBrons had played 54 games and had only 28 games remaining. Clearly, the break comes nowhere near the halfway mark of the season.
So, here is my proposal. Why can't the NBA move its All-Star Game up by just 2 weeks? That way, the NBA would have missed the Winter Olympics entirely, and the NBA All-Star Game would've gone head-to-head against the NFL's Pro Bowl...a matchup that the NBA would have dominated. And FYI, on Sunday, January 31, the Cavaliers were 38-11 and 5 games closer to the true midseason mark.
Given how much the NBA lost when it posted up (sorry) against the Winter Olympics, someone please tell me why moving it up by 2 weeks would have been a bad idea. I really think this should be the default every 4 years. Plus, it would show the NFL that the Pro Bowl sucks regardless of whether it's the week before or after the Super Bowl!
Posts
Two major things have hurt the NBA in the last decade.
ReplyDelete1. National TV broadcasts, including the All Star Game, moved primarily to cable. Although the NBA is making more money by having games that were previously on NBA on ESPN, it has exposed those games to fewer people, especially children developing sports loyalties.
2. Bad Knicks teams. Love it or hate it, sports leagues are at their highest level of interest when New York teams are consistently involved in the playoff hunt. Teams like the Cavs and Spurs have had huge success, but fewer people care. When the Nets made the finals a few years ago, the interest in the NY market was less than the Jets NOT playing in the Super Bowl this year. If the Nets do end up moving to Brooklyn and develop a fanbase, that would also do wonders for the NBA.