Blazers on National TV - Wrong priorities for the NBA?

by matthewcc on Aug 4, 2007 10:16 AM PDT Comment 32 comments

This may seem sacrilegious, but is giving the Blazers so many televised games reflective of one of the bigger problems with the NBA? The Sonics and Blazers are both going to get significant national coverage for the first time in forever, but do they really deserve it? Its doubtful either team will be very good at all this year. The NBA is clearly putting star promotion way ahead of good basketball. Should we be happy about it just because they're promoting our stars?

Here is a pretty good critique of the NBA schedule that True Hoop linked to, one I find myself agreeing with. I love that the Blazers are getting more exposure, but the larger issue of the NBA relying on stars instead of the excellence of the teams is annoying. I do not want to watch the Lakers or Heat (who are going to be be terrible) 7,000 times a year. I'd much rather watch Utah and Toronto.

What do you guys think? Do the Blazers really deserve to be on national TV? Would you support a new scheduling priority if for 2007-08 it meant less Lakers and Heat, but also less Blazers?

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

believe me

if the celtics wouid've made the garnett trade 2 weeks ago,believe me the blazers would'nt be on t.v. that much.if you guys read my post in the marty burns post.then you'll see how america really feels right now.do me a favor read my enire post in m.burns then comment on it.

by fatty on Aug 4, 2007 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

you got that right

man fatty the more i see whats happening the more im starting to get concerned,,,the world is acting like we have the third coming of jesus s christ...whats going to happen to my man if he starts slow gets in foul trouble or just is in transition,,, is he going to recoil ,,,dam i wish they would just let us sneek up on folks... odwen is not going to come out and be shaq of 2004 ....accept it

if it can be conceived it can be achieved

by lyfefindsaway on Aug 5, 2007 1:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

One might reasonably argue that the NBA's over-reliance on the star system as a marketing tool has run its course.

It served the league well back in '84 when Stern took over a league beset with drug scandals and dwindling popularity. Stern smartly turned the focus to incoming stars Bird and Magic to right the ship and get people to care about the NBA again.

However, it wasn't long before the star system corrupted the integrity of the league's referees and created a two tier officiating system: one set of rules for the stars and one set for everyone else. This in turn contributed to the notion that the game's rules were fungible and open to interpretation which ultimately led to an environment in which a Tim Donaghy could operate virtually undetected.

I had hoped that the Donaghy scandal would force the NBA to re-evaluate its priorities and get back to re-establishing a more level playing field in which stars did not receive such special consideration - both on the court and in the marketing of the league. Sadly, the selection of nationally televised games for the upcoming season would seem to indicate that this will not be the case.

by knickfan on Aug 4, 2007 10:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You may feel it's star promotion

and the league may feel that way too. But I have a feeling this is going to be a good TEAM.

by Blazerholic on Aug 4, 2007 11:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah

in 2008 or 2009. But Christmas 2007? Come on, this team is going to stink. Its the first time the majority of this roster has played together, and everyone is is rookie, 2nd year, or 3rd year player. It Outlaw starts, here's the starting lineups experience:

2, 1, 3, 1, R

They'll be good in spurts, and they'll certainly be exciting for Blazer fans, but from the view of a general fan of basketball excellence, this year the Blazers are certain to be bad.

The Timberwolves are almost the exact same team as the Blazers. Take away the star power of Greg Oden, and they're like our evil twin. If you put Oden on the Timberwolves, it would still make for really bad basketball. I wouldn't want to watch them more than once or twice.

Its not really to say that the Blazers will stink, its that there are plenty of teams that are really good right now (and much better than the Blazers) that are getting blacked out because they don't have a superstar.

by matthewcc on Aug 4, 2007 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

to boot and a friend of mine told me this yesterday,if boston would've made this trade
a week or 2 sooner,i really believe you would
not see the blazers at all.minny will be 12-70
this year book it.

by fatty on Aug 4, 2007 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Umm, how do you know who's starting?

Nate doesn't make up his mind until training camp is over. Pryz could beat out Oden. James Jones and Blake could start. Then your "years of experience" are 4, 1, 4, 1, 7.

Before this year, Seattle had roughly the same team Nate took to the WCF. But after he left, they stunk. All I'm saying is at this point we don't know what happens. If this team plays with hustle and heart, as I think they will, they won't stink. They may not win alot, but I'll watch that kind of play any day.

by Blazerholic on Aug 5, 2007 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're making my point

All I'm saying is at this point we don't know what happens ... They may not win alot, but I'll watch that kind of play any day.

The Blazers are being given national TV on the strength of Oden's star power alone. We may hope and think they'll be good, but they haven't shown that any more than any other bad team. If they're starting Blake, Jones, and Pryzbilla, the Blazers make for even WORSE TV for non-Blazer fans. Not only are they not a high-caliber team at that point, but they even lack the star power.

You seem to be having a difficult time looking at the Blazers from an outside perspective. You may think they're going to be good, but national TV time shouldn't be given to teams based on how interesting their own fans think they'll be. The Blazers have been so bad for a long time, and they should have to demonstrate on the court that they are a good team before they get lot of national games.

by matthewcc on Aug 5, 2007 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the nbaboxingwwe

are all brothers,those sports are fixed period. as much as i love the blazers,i wishing the nba ends up like mls or boxing.boxing is in denial, they can't except that the 18-34 crowd loves m.m.a. period.it's a you problem for boxing,nba, and wwe.when you have overweight 400lbs wwe no lifer fan supporting c.benoit that's all you need to know about the fat sorrya** wwe fan.also you know how i feel about nba(goofs)bandwagon fan.and the celebrity elititist boxing crowd that's in tears that nobody can tell you who're the 4 heavyweight champions are it's pathetic*sad.

by fatty on Aug 4, 2007 11:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah this does suck

After reading that article if more people are interested in the NBA they will be drawn to the Blazers in the next few years, unfortunately not this year.

My hope is that Oden will be at full speed and Durant/Green and Co. can play us hard and we win a tight game on Xmas to give the national audience a good show, to show them that basketball in the NW is back for good.

For anybody who is going to be there we need to pack the place and represent for NW bball. We need to riase the roof to show them what we have here.

Back on subject, I understand that good games not good players make for good TV but I think that TV execs are not BBall addicts like many are here, thats not their job. It is easy to put 1 and 1 together as oppposed to actually looking at the matchups and which style of play will be entertaining thatn another.

SHAQ AND KOBE GOOD!! Gerald Wallace and Mike Miller BAD!!

Even though GW and MM are great players they do not get the airtime that the names do.

by SpyderRyder on Aug 4, 2007 12:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Honestly

How many more Lakers versus Phoenix games have to be shoved down our throats? The Lakers will be a very mediocre team next year, too. Phoenix will most undoubtly blow that game out.

Lebron versus Wade?

Great... except that Wade's team is extremely old, Shaq will most likely be injured, Lebron will still be bricking jumpers, and if I see Varejao flop one more time I will punch someone in the stugotz.

At least you get to see Oden, Durant, Roy, Green, and LaMarcus play against each other. How does this not excite you?

ROTUNDITYDOTNET

by damir on Aug 4, 2007 2:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

you're missing the point, lakers are the problem

its exciting because its our team, but its not inherently exciting to people in Indiana or South Carolina or wherever. Nationally televised games shouldn't be about appeasing large markets (LA) or promoting individual stars (Seattle and Portland).

When the Blazers have proved they are a good team and actually start, you know, winning some games, then their games should be elevated to the national stage because its good for basketball. But giving the country mediocre basketball games is going to continue to generate fan apathy. You should really read the article if you have not about this particular point.

And yes, more Miami and Laker and LeBron games are a problem, as I pointed out in my post, and as the guy's article pointed out. The idea is that the games that get selected would be determined by which match ups feature two good teams, instead of which match ups feature two heavily promoted stars. At the moment, this would leave Miami, Portland, and LA with limited national games, but hopefully that would leave more room for better teams with less star wattage.

I'm not hating on the Blazers. I just wished the NBA rewarded good play instead of big stars. We all expect the Blazers to be improved, but so do the fans of virtually every other team. I'm not saying national games should be a reward to teams, I'm saying the NBA and its affiliates should reward basketball fans by giving them the best games, not the biggest stars.

by matthewcc on Aug 4, 2007 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

Except it's the casual fan that tunes in to see Lebron, Kobe, Shaq, Wade, and Nash. The NBA is directly appeasing to those fans, not to the die-hard basketball fan.

I agree with you, but the die-hard in me would rather watch Blazers versus Sonics (even if it will be a mediocre game) because you get to see five up and coming stars compete at an early age. Hell, I bet you now that the Sonics/Blazers game will be more exciting to watch than Miami/Cleveland - two playoff teams.

ROTUNDITYDOTNET

by damir on Aug 4, 2007 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree

But that's what almost all mainstream media does. Good movies without big names have a tough time in the box office some times whereas horrible movies with big names still do well.

It's just our culture. You're a learned bball fan, and obviously you prefer good team ball. I would think though 95% of the rest of hte nation would prefer to watch superstars. I like good basketball, and love the Blazers. But in all honesty, if i'm going to spend my time watching a game not featuring the Blazers, I'd rather watch an electrifying athlete (Wade, Lebron, Kobe, etc.), evne if their team is mediocre. I've got no real team that i'm supporting in the game and I'm treating the game as a mode of entertainment. It is extremely superficial, but if it's not the blazers, i'd rather see Kobe go for 80 pts or Lebron dominate, rather than see the Raptors and Jazz play solid ball.

I'm also pretty sure the league has examined this. They need to maximize superstars to get any money. Although i think when we were good (Wallace era), we were getting Christmas games and whatnot without having a superstar. The NBA likes to foster rivalries, a Durant/Oden rivalry seems to work eerily well for a TV show. I know it's insane, since they don't play the same position and it's like comparing apples to oranges. But you know people will tune in to watch it.

If it was only good team ball that deserved national air time. We'd be watching all 82 Spurs games. I'm also sure that if the blazers hd turned into a legit championship contending team without landing Oden, we would have gotten that air time later, and probably more deservedly. But after all these painful years, we deserve something.... haha

by ssa400 on Aug 4, 2007 3:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

But if you are right

why is the viewership declining?

"On March 19, 2006, a rained-out NASCAR telecast got a higher television rating than ABC's presentation of the Los Angeles Lakers-Cleveland Cavaliers game." You can't get much more star-studded than that.

by jorga on Aug 4, 2007 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point obviously

I'm pretty sure though if they highlighted good team ball rather than teh superstars, their viewership would go down even more. That is unless more teams picked up the Suns tv-friendly style of play. If that happens, then I think you'll see more teams being hyped rather than just players. The Raptors seems to be on that track, so if they do end up being an exciting team to watch, they'll get on TV too. On the other hand, if we turn out to not be aesthetically pleasing (which is a very real possibility), then we'll slowly get off the national radar. Which is fine, as long as we win a championship.

by ssa400 on Aug 4, 2007 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

another thought

I really think the NBA is trying it's hardest to develop some real rivalries. The reason I watch the Blazers is because i care deeply who wins. That feeling is relatively easy to foster if it's your own team you're watching. It's significantly more difficult when you don't live in either area or don't have a real connection with either team.

There are only a couple real rivalries right now, and I think each of them get relatively good TV ratings (i'm not sure, just guessing)

Lakers - Suns: I really enjoy their games, regardless of how bad the Lakers are. Watching Kobe try to beat one of the best TEAMS almost single handedly is great, espeically after the Laker playoff meltdown a couple years back (feels so good to say that)

Mavs - Warriors: A gift to the NBA. I know I'll be watching these two teasm play.

Heat - Pistons: 2 Powers in the East. Both teams are probably on the decline, but it's still a fun matchup.

Suns - Spurs: Obvious.

There's probably a couple more, i'm having trouble coming up with them. But in each case, I honestly care at least a little who wins. I probably wouldn't want to watch the Warriors play anyone else, but against the Mavs, it'd be well worth it.

by ssa400 on Aug 4, 2007 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a good point.

Sonics-Blazers will be a longstanding rivalry (if the Sonics don't move), so maybe they're trying to get that embedded in people's minds now so that when the teams are good people already know about the rivalry.

"I just went thru your comments and they are of pulitzer prize consideration." -lyfefindsaway

by bocious on Aug 4, 2007 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

but x mas day ????`

cmon bocious...every body and their mama is gonig to be tuned in..if we stink it up or some one has a bad game..lord forbid one of are weaker minded players..it could be catastronic.. if martell goes 3 for 12 or travis misses a dunk in the fourth...it might shut the season down.....i dont know either player but my instincts tell me they are very fragile...bradnon could miss 12 in a row and come back and take that next one and move on.. i dont see it any one else yet not even LA

if it can be conceived it can be achieved

by lyfefindsaway on Aug 5, 2007 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not too worried about it.

I think the fans will be embarassed if our guys bomb, but average viewers around the country aren't going to hold it in memory for very long. I also think the announcers will be more than willing to remind viewers that the teams are young. Ultimately, I think the message that people get from this game is that everyone is seeing the beginnings of a long rivalry. I see your point, but in the end I'm not too worried about it.

"I just went thru your comments and they are of pulitzer prize consideration." -lyfefindsaway

by bocious on Aug 5, 2007 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

not the fans

but the player..if you need a shrink to validate your worth to the nba...thats scary dude.. where were the shrinks when billy ray bates was rolling around in n.e. portland with a freebase kit in his shirt pocket...but you didnt hear that from me..or the media.. its like the bowie/ jordan thing..times have changed.. they probably know how many times oden farted in 2006 ..back then it was "hey Sam looked cool lets draft him".....im not worried either bocius..well be alright.. :O)
one more thing ..you know pritchard didnt draft webster... he would have saw the mental weakness..i hope my man proves my fears unwaranted

if it can be conceived it can be achieved

by lyfefindsaway on Aug 6, 2007 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I made a comment to this effect on

the schedule release post. I think most who aren't fans will find the Blazers games (this season) a let down. My biggest concern is that this ruins the chances of getting some nice national coverage in about 2-3 seasons when we will warrant it. Personally, I'll be watching most of the games anyway as a digital cable subscriber, and season ticket holder, but when you are talking about the franchise making the deserved money it could sting a little if there is national reluctance to pick up Blazers games prior to us being contenders due to what will probably be something of a let down on the heavy coverage this season... it's just premature.

by drawingjeremy on Aug 4, 2007 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think it will affect future coverage.

From a Blazer standpoint, I think it's nice that we get so many nationally televised games. It will keep us in people's minds while we develop so that once we've got all our pieces in place people will already be in people's minds. I don't think people will be reluctant to show our games in the future because in the future we'll legitimately deserve to be televised and people will enjoy watching our games.

But yeah, from an NBA standpoint this doesn't seem like a very good idea.

"I just went thru your comments and they are of pulitzer prize consideration." -lyfefindsaway

by bocious on Aug 4, 2007 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

that was a reply to drawingjeremy.

This was meant as a response to drawingjeremy's comment above. I forgot to click the Reply button before I started typing.

"I just went thru your comments and they are of pulitzer prize consideration." -lyfefindsaway

by bocious on Aug 4, 2007 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope you're right

I know once we are a contender you are (at least the following season since they plan it the summer before).

by drawingjeremy on Aug 4, 2007 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

jeremy your point is perfect

i guarantee you that when the blazers flop,the next couple of years will be hard to get legit airtime.like the spurs in the mid 90's.once rodman went to chicago,the networks pulled the plug on them.even when they won their 2nd title america tuned them out.and with the blazers having the potential to be deaf to wacth this season.the networks will make them pay when they finally do arrive around the year 2010.

by fatty on Aug 4, 2007 7:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good business

The powers that be have realized there is a significant chance of a Blazer dynasty sometime in the future. Rather than risk a Spurs part II debacle, it's better to jump on the team early, overexpose them, hype them up, and hope that casual fans take to them as they did Orlando w/Shaq.

by Engineering Problem on Aug 4, 2007 9:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

#1

the blazers will not be a dynasty,the nba will make sure of that.also the bandwagon fan does'nt like boring basketball.and portland will be a very boring deaf team to wacth(san antonio-utah)and america won't stand for it.

by fatty on Aug 5, 2007 7:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Portland

If this were 10 years ago same team they might very well snatch it from us. The only way I see that happening is if Oden leaves and I don't think he will. In 4 years when he is likely to consider leaving he will be older and will want a championship and his best shot will be with the team built around him. He has two other excellent players in Roy and Aldridge a Billionaire owner willing to Cut the Check for Oden and Nike is right here. He still can visit L.A., Boston, NYC but by then will know the standard of living here is so much better due to the air being clean etc. etc.

Portland is on the national radar as a hip young city and that will only increase over the next few years. Look for more films to be filmed here and for Portland to become THE up and coming new city in the country (Of course NYC is still NYC and Boston is boston but we will be a media darling). If you lived here fatty you'd understand why I say that. I've lived here my whole life virtually while traveling to something like 23 countries and seen a fair chunk of this country. Portland is special and what I've come back to again and again.

Even in NY they are talking about us I picked up a Westchester paper while I was there and a huge article was on P-town and how hip we are same with NY Times and others. We're on the national radar in a way we couldn't of dreamed of in 77 or Clyde's Era. We got a big potential star in Oden that has been annointed by the media and a City that is earning respect nationwide. I think Portland both the team and the city will suprise you in the next 4 years just watch.

I think we will win at least 2 titles with serious runs starting in 2010. 2 and Maybe even more assuming Oden stays which may not be a Jordan or Duncan style legacy but is more then enough for me.

Roy, LMA, and Oden. 41-15 book that! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)

by Idog1976 on Aug 5, 2007 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm conflicted

I'm pleased the team has the exposure, but I also love it when we come out of nowhere. Being an underdog that wins is always satisfying.

by jorga on Aug 5, 2007 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The talking heads

are saying we won't finish higher then 13th and I honestly think with all of the changes in the west with allot of talent going east or getting injured that the Blazers might even be a bubble team who could sneak in to an 8th seed. It will probably take a year but I bet it will go down to the wire with the other 7th 8th contenders. 13th is definitely too low. The big sports writers almost all agree that Portland will be 10th or lower and I think they can beat that. I predict a 9th place finish with a run at grabbing 8th. I don't think we will make it this year barring some block buster trade or injury for another team. Portland will be better then expected but will succumb to pressure and inexperience down the stretch. The blazers will finish 8th or 9th right around .500 April determines whether or not they sneak in. One more lottery year isn't a bad thing especially with KP wheelin' and Dealin. Send Roy again :)

Roy, LMA, and Oden. 41-15 book that! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)

by Idog1976 on Aug 5, 2007 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keep in mind...

that you are in the top 5 percentile of basketball loyalty by being here, showing more thought and devotion than at least 95% of "fans" out there.

And that's the key: mainstream, middle America (and beyond our borders, for that matter) want to see the stars (you could really get into that whole consumer vs. fan thing here again). That's what they know and what they want to see. Becoming a fan of well played basketball isn't for everyone (thankfully, or we'd be sharing conversations like they do at other blog outlets) and takes time to establish the vision.

You always need to look for new customers, and the NBA does that by showing "What's Now". Some serious fans could be born out of watching those potentially lesser games. Blazermania could spread far and wide.

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Aug 6, 2007 1:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs