StillUnknown Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8187914/In-NBA-playoffs,-less-ink-means-more-viewers Over the next couple of weeks you'll hear lots of theories about why TV ratings are surging for the NBA playoffs. Of course it helps that large TV markets with storied franchises (Boston and Los Angeles) are still alive and favorites to make the NBA Finals. And, yes, it helps that the league's two most successful franchises over the last five years (San Antonio and Detroit) are competing against the Lakers and the Celtics. The conference finals are littered with big stars, too. Kobe, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Paul Pierce, Tony Parker, Ray Allen, Manu Ginobili, Rasheed Wallace and all the rest could make up an all-star team that the rest of the league couldn't beat. Obviously, there are a lot of factors contributing to the ratings numbers that TNT, ESPN and ABC keep bragging about in nearly daily press releases. The NBA has been experiencing a resurgence ever since the Suns traded for Shaquille O'Neal, the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol, the Mavericks got hoodwinked into snagging Jason Kidd and the Cavaliers picked up new spare parts for LeBron. But there's one issue driving improved ratings that likely won't be touched by all the NBA talking heads on TNT and ESPN. Tattoos. Or rather the lack of tattoos in the conference finals. Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees..... click link for rest of article. thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I seriously doubt that ratings are influenced by the number of tattoos seen on the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 He's right about one thing, tattoos are extremely played-out and most intelligent people have very few, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 they should take his degree from ball state away from him and blow up his section of foxsports.com off the face of the internets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 they should take his degree from ball state away from him and blow up his section of foxsports.com off the face of the internets Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Why? 4 of the best franchises in the league in the final 4, with its 2 most storied franchises set to play in the finals, with 3/4 teams winning at least 1 this decade already.... that sounds like a ratings grab to me has nothing to do with ink or not, what a lazy piece of journalism. show me evidence that proves ink = less viewers with everything else being equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted May 30, 2008 Author Share Posted May 30, 2008 4 of the best franchises in the league in the final 4, with its 2 most storied franchises set to play in the finals, with 3/4 teams winning at least 1 this decade already.... that sounds like a ratings grab to mehas nothing to do with ink or not, what a lazy piece of journalism. show me evidence that proves ink = less viewers with everything else being equal. exactly, sounded like he was scraping the bottom of the barrel for topics to write about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I agree with his conclusion, but I also question the means at which it was arrived. I feel that less ink, and more "wholesome" connotations would/does make the NBA more marketable. However, I also recognize I base this on a "gut" feeling, and have no evidence to really back it up. It'd be nice if Whitlock made a similar declaration concerning his opinion. Instead, he repeatedly seems to state it as fact, when the evidence he presents (none) does not lend itself to such a level of certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 not sure how whitlock managed to write this article and stop short of talking about race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I think tats are ugly. I saw Beckham now has a large one on the back of his neck in the England - USA international on Wednesday and my reaction was 'what a dick', but it didn't make me think about changing the channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Not all tats are created equal. You can have ink on you and not look like a criminal.... and you can tat yourself up to look like you just got out of prison too. Tattoos on the neck are generally not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 4 of the best franchises in the league in the final 4, with its 2 most storied franchises set to play in the finals, with 3/4 teams winning at least 1 this decade already.... that sounds like a ratings grab to mehas nothing to do with ink or not, what a lazy piece of journalism. show me evidence that proves ink = less viewers with everything else being equal. I agree with this. There might be a housewife or two out there who may turn it off because the tats make her uncomfortable, but your average sports fan won't. Nor will anyone tune in simply because the players look cleaner, which is the inference in the article. I also agree with Mboyd in that tats are extremely played out, and typically WAY overdone. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 He's right about one thing, tattoos are extremely played-out and most intelligent people have very few, if any. I'm glad to know that we have a resident expert in what the hell smart people do with their bodies. Except the fact, of course, that he's completely wrong. But that's neither here nor there. Whitlock wrote this article, but if a white man had insinuated that the players look like "prison parolees" then that person would be called racist, even though there is no racism there. Gotta love double standards. Also have to love ridiculous claims like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Whitlock wrote this article, but if a white man had insinuated that the players look like "prison parolees" then that person would be called racist, even though there is no racism there. Gotta love double standards. Also have to love ridiculous claims like that. I don't know about that. Tats of a certain type make everyone look like excons regardless of skin color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovetoaster Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I normally like Whitlock, but it feels like he was really reaching with this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Whitlock's a ****ing idiot if actually believes even 10% of the stuff he writes, especially this. Really reaching there buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Maybe it's that there are more circumcisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 Funny this should come up, the other day I was watching the Boston-Detroit game with an acquaintance. She said she didn't understand why black people have tattoo's if you can barely see them. She also mentioned she didn't really like basketball because she felt the players were too thuggish. Taking these two unrelated comments, I can see how Whitlock might come to this conclusion. My acquaintance certainly sees both tatted up and thuggish as similar in some aspect. I tried defending the players but she didn't buy into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I know many of you probably think the number of tattoos doesn't influence viewing habits. You're wrong. Like everything else televised, appearances matter. There's a reason you don't see nude scenes in movies with fat people. Trust me, fat people have sex. It's just no one wants to see it. Not even fat people. Stunning analysis. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 not sure how whitlock managed to write this article and stop short of talking about race. He was talking about race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 He was talking about race. so he was saying that more people are watching the nba playoffs because the pistons, lakers, celts and spurs don't have many black players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stophovr6 Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 so he was saying that more people are watching the nba playoffs because the pistons, lakers, celts and spurs don't have many black players? I think he's trying to say they don't have as many thuggish black players. I know it sounds ludicrous, but I don't think he's that far off base in terms of perception from viewers. I also don't think it's the major reason for increased viewership. Boston and LA are the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 so he was saying that more people are watching the nba playoffs because the pistons, lakers, celts and spurs don't have many black players? No, he was saying that one of the reasons the ratings were up was because there wasn't as many players with a bunch of tatoos that looked as if they came from prison. I don't care if he is black, that statement has racist undertones. There's not to many players with more tatoos than A.I and Lebron, I don't see the ratings being any worst if they were still in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 No, he was saying that one of the reasons the ratings were up was because there wasn't as many players with a bunch of tatoos that looked as if they came from prison. I don't care if he is black, that statement has racist undertones.There's not to many players with more tatoos than A.I and Lebron, I don't see the ratings being any worst if they were still in the playoffs. i think you're right that he's wrong. i think if you take what he said and parlay that into racism, you might want to look in the mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 i think you're right that he's wrong.i think if you take what he said and parlay that into racism, you might want to look in the mirror. Are you saying what he said didn't have racist undertones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.