Jeff Foxworthy is cooler than LeBron

NBA Finals TV ratings suck eggs. Dozens and dozens of eggs.

So much for LeBron saving basketball. The spanking that the Spurs are putting on the Cavs after two games is generating so little interest outside of us sports nerds that more people are watching “So You Think You Can Dance?” than the NBA Finals. Sad.

"No, dude, seriously, this is the NBA Finals, we should focus." [pause] "ha, ha, ha, good one, motherfucker!!"

Game 2 pulled a 3.7 rating and 9.2 million total viewers. Total viewers were down 20% from last year's first game, which featured the Miami Heat and Dallas Mavericks. That series had its own set of NBA stars with high Q ratings—namely Shaq and Dywane Wade.

Fox's "So You Think You Can Dance?" It earned a 4.3 at 9 p.m., and led all network shows. With a solid 3.0/10 from "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" Fox's pair of question-mark shows pulled off another win for the network, tossing LeBron’s attempt at playing Jordan into the cheap seats.

maybe we should be watching this dancing show after all

Surely, the decline of ratings and audiences for sports on TV has been well documented over the past 20 years. The fact is that outside of the NFL, sports on TV simply is overrated and does not draw the crowds. The NBA knows full well that the guaranteed money from ABC/ESPN/TNT for TV rights is modern day piracy, but if the big networks feel the need for it, well, good for the NBA.

But the Spurs are a fiasco in terms of drawing and keeping fans to tune in. Add a pathetic showing by the Cavs and early game blowouts and it all adds up to more people watching a show that is an inbred version of “Fame” and “American Idol” with a slight case of downs syndrome.
So in light of America tuning out the NBA Finals, here are some new names we came up with for ABC to use:

“Are You Smarter Than LeBron James?”
“So You Think You Can Beat the Spurs?”
“Cold Case: Larry Hughes”
“The Boobie King” (homage to Daniel Gibson and LeBron)
“CSI: San Antonio”
“World’s Funniest Blowouts”

Mr. East Note:

I saw the ratings on this series too and thought about exactly what Mr. West wrote above. Great minds. I think it's safe to say that the NBA is about as compelling as watching paint dry. I commented on a now-defunct hoops blog of some note about 2 years ago that sports depends on a compelling storyline to succeed as a televised commodity. The gist of my pre-blogging rant was that Red Sox/Yankees is compelling because there's history, rabid fan bases, close proximity, and Babe Ruth. Celtics and Lakers was compelling because Magic and Bird faced off in college and both teams were just so damn good. The East Coast tradition versus the West Coast showtime was a great storyline. Bulls vs. Pistons was great because both teams kicked each others' asses for years, one winning the title and the other going home pissed. The essence of a good rivalry makes for good television.

So, we've had Mavericks vs. Heat (2006), Spurs vs. Pistons (2005), Lakers vs. Pistons (2004), Spurs vs. Nets (2003) and Three Lakers Championships with a Pistons vs. Knicks in the 4 years prior. It seems to me that the key ingredient is the lack of a rivalry. No storyline. No history. No compelling struggle between the Irresistable Force and the Immovable Object. Both the Spurs and Pistons have made multiple appearances, but they've only played one another once. The Lakers played 4 times in recent years but they played a different Eastern Conference club each time. LeBron James is mildly interesting, but name one other guy on that club that makes great drama. You can't. The Spurs are completely uninteresting. Duncan is a dud of a personality. Bowen is one of the most hated players in the league, which would drum up some kind of passion if he didn't suck, or if he had plaid hair. Ginobili is occasionally exciting and Parker turns it up a notch in the playoffs, but who are they matched up against? Is there anything in the matchups that equals "Must See TV"? Larry Bird isn't walking through that door.

Parity is death for interesting hoops. It would be much better if the NBA abolished the salary cap and killed the small market clubs. New York vs. LA would be much better to watch than what we have now. Cleveland vs. San Antonio? Oooooooh. Those cities hate each other.....

Nothing will ever happen to make this a good situation. At least not until all the stars are aligned with two teams that can't be beaten in the East and West. Lakers versus Celtics would be good. 4 or 5 years of the same shit would actually be good for the sport, like the Yankees winning it 4 out of 5 years in the 1990s. Now they can't win, so everyone is happy, but when they won it made for good TV, even if it was only to root against the Evil Empire.