Local NBA TV Ratings
 

No surprises here.

Cavs come in at #1, Spurs #2, Warriors #3.

It's great to see such a huge rating for the Cavs since they have one of the smaller TV markets especially if you compare it to the Warriors and Spurs who have massive TV markets.

Where is NY Chi and LA. I figured they would be up there to. But cavs make sense Lebron changes everything I guess lol.

NY and CHI have the 2nd and 4th largest average audience respectively but low ratings due to the overall size of the TV market.

LA has just terrible ratings, all the former Laker fans hopped on the Warriors bandwagon

The ratings system is so broken. It doesn't really give you a true picture of a market in this day and age. More than half the people i know don't even have cable anymore and still watch the sports and shows they want.

According to this article:

[url=http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/02/08/Media/NBA-RSNs.aspx]Wins keep coming for Golden State as local TV ratings shoot for the stars - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global[/url]

The top 5 in average audience are:

Golden State Warriors CSN Bay Area 209,000 (+120%)
New York Knicks MSG 160,000 (+29%)
Cleveland Cavaliers FS Ohio 141,000 (+38%)
Chicago Bulls CSN Chicago 122,000 (-29%)
Los Angeles Lakers Time Warner Cable SportsNet 92,000 (-17%)

Lakers vs. Cavs on ESPN? Pass. Mark Jackson sucks.
Lakers vs. Cavs on Fox Sports Ohio? Yep. Austin Carr is great.

[QUOTE=Brad;10490892]According to this article:

[url=http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/02/08/Media/NBA-RSNs.aspx]Wins keep coming for Golden State as local TV ratings shoot for the stars - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal | SportsBusiness Daily Global[/url]

The top 5 in average audience are:

Golden State Warriors CSN Bay Area 209,000 (+120%)
New York Knicks MSG 160,000 (+29%)
Cleveland Cavaliers FS Ohio 141,000 (+38%)
Chicago Bulls CSN Chicago 122,000 (-29%)
Los Angeles Lakers Time Warner Cable SportsNet 92,000 (-17%)[/QUOTE]

From the article "Information for Memphis, Utah and Toronto was not available. "

Toronto had an average of about 260,000+ last year - but every Toronto game is a National game in Canada.

[QUOTE=smalltown;10490875]The ratings system is so broken. It doesn't really give you a true picture of a market in this day and age. More than half the people i know don't even have cable anymore and still watch the sports and shows they want.[/QUOTE]

Tv ratings are a sample % of the total universe based on a diary survey that's filled out. You're absolutely correct that its pretty out dated. Cant even truly verify the survey. PPM/Audience is the better way to gauge it. But then large markets would win out everytime due to population.

The only people that should care about tv ratings are advertisers and broadcasters.

The Celtics are on the rise here, but most people either a.) don't believe it or b.) don't know it. I think more people are watching the Bruins in this town... Unfortunate, b/c this team is really fun to watch!

[QUOTE=asujbl;10490919]Lakers vs. Cavs on ESPN? Pass. Mark Jackson sucks.
Lakers vs. Cavs on Fox Sports Ohio? Yep. Austin Carr is great.[/QUOTE]

+1 I refuse to watch Cavs games on national TV because the announcers never have anything good to say about them, it's really annoying.

Favorite Austin Carr quote - "AND HE THROWS THE HAMMER DOWN"

[QUOTE=Orangejello727;10490930]Tv ratings are a sample % of the total universe based on a diary survey that's filled out.[/QUOTE]

I cannot, for the life of me, understand what this means. I really don't know how these ratings work but could you explain that a little better?

[QUOTE=Orangejello727;10490930]Tv ratings are a sample % of the total universe based on a diary survey that's filled out. You're absolutely correct that its pretty out dated. Cant even truly verify the survey. PPM/Audience is the better way to gauge it. But then large markets would win out everytime due to population.

The only people that should care about tv ratings are advertisers and broadcasters.[/QUOTE]


I never understood why fans cared about ratings. I don't care if one person is watching or one million. As noted the buyers and sellers of advertisements care.

We filled out a diary for Nielsen many years ago. It paid pretty well for minimal effort of keeping a viewing journal.

[QUOTE=fullmetal;10491004]I never understood why fans cared about ratings. I don't care if one person is watching or one million. As noted the buyers and sellers of advertisements care.

We filled out a diary for Nielson many years ago. It paid pretty well for minimal effort of keeping a viewing journal.[/QUOTE]

PPM now uses sound frequency. Basically its a box in your home that picks up sound frequency to recognize what is on tv and being watched. Unfortunately people still leave the tv on and don't watch. That coupled with the fact that most people are moving away from conventional television watching just means whatever data is collected is even more fragmented.

At least its not as bad as fraudulent digital advertising. Whereby dirty traffic is used to consume ads.

[QUOTE=jcardstore;10490963]I cannot, for the life of me, understand what this means. I really don't know how these ratings work but could you explain that a little better?[/QUOTE]

Basically they take a small sample of the population and predict what people are watching.

An exert from how it works

[QUOTE]Nielsen uses a technique called statistical sampling to rate the shows -- the same technique that pollsters use to predict the outcome of elections. Nielsen creates a "sample audience" and then counts how many in that audience view each program. Nielsen then extrapolates from the sample and estimates the number of viewers in the entire population watching the show[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Orangejello727;10491032]Basically they take a small sample of the population and predict what people are watching.

An exert from how it works[/QUOTE]

Thank you