NBA: Cavs v. Pistons Game 2 Aftermath and Observations
Posted May 25th, 2007 by George Thomas
No, there isn't going to be a lot of game analysis here, primarily because I don't think there's much of a point to dissecting something that's likely already been sliced and diced to death today.
A lot of people have asked me what it's like to cover the Eastern Conference Finals, so what the heck. I figured I'd offer some insight (as if the rest of you really care).
- I've heard some people complain about the pyrotechnics the Cavs use before games. Here's a piece of advice: do not go to The Palace of Auburn Hills to watch one. During their pre-game festivities they use the fireworks and spewing flames. By the time it was done I felt as if I should have had an apple in my mouth, been garnished with pineapple and pineapple juice and roasted over an open pit. Fun. Fun. Fun.
- I've been to a few arenas in my lifetime, but I've yet to meet ushers the caliber of the ones in Motown. Ushers? Who the hell am I kidding? Some of them acted as if they worked with Tony Soprano. Some of the badges don't even give them the title of "usher". They actually read "crowd control." How welcoming. But on at least two occasions the crowd control folks crossed the line. One grabbed me without permission and by the time he was done I wanted to ask him if it was good for him and whether he wanted a smoke. Such fun. And the biggest crime of all, he didn't even ask for my number. I feel so cheap and used.
- Then there's always the irrationality that follows losses such as the one Thursday night. I get home from Detroit and this gem waits in my mailbox. Please note that as sloppy as I can be on this blog occasionally, the spelling and grammatical errors are not mine:
"i am sending in this preemptive email, before everybody starts bashing lebron. why is it that everybody except maybe dan gilbert, see that mike brown is the problem. he could get away with ineptitude against terrible teams, but the pistons bring out what many die hard cavs fans have been seeing all year."
Now everyone out there raise your hand if you think that the Cavaliers have a championship caliber team. Go stand over there and the folks from your local mental health institution will be by shortly.
- Then there was this gem of an email that came in response to a column of mine that ran today:
After reading your article about the guy who doesn't have cable, I thought you might offer up better solutions. There are plenty of places to go and enjoy a game that are fan friendly. How about going to watch the game at a Damon's Grill??? They are family friendly
with four 12 FOOT Big Screen televisions. Personally I am sick of people whining about cable tv. This isn't 1979, its 2007! This person wasn't complaining the Cavs weren't on television when they were they were only winning 17 games a short time ago?!?!
Tell the guy to quit whining and do something about it! He is probably the same guy who called Mark "Munch" Bishops show the other day complaining the game wasn't on TV. It was on TV, its called CABLE TV and no one wants to hear his whining.
Ahhh such intelligence. Such compassion. Such questionable taste in dining choices. Damon's? As Rodney Dangerfield said so eloquently about the country club cuisine in Caddyshack - "Tell the chef this was low grade dog food."
As for getting cable because it's 2007, please. He's a parent who doesn't want to put temptation in his house in the form of unwanted channels. Being a parent, I get that. Secondly, any league that wants to please its fans will want to make sure its post-season games are easily accessible. Selling the rights to cable networks who do not intend to sell the feed to over-the-air stations doesn't exactly fall into that category. This is why the NFL continues to dominate and the NBA and MLB continue to eat football's turf.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Damon's? Yeah, just what I want to do…leave my house and spend money all night in some ribhouse so I can watch a hoops game. The NBA has lost me completely. I pay about $12 for the most-basic cable, and the bill would rise nearly 80% to upgrade to a tier that includes TNT. Thus, goodbye, NBA. I don't need your product, and apparently you don't need me as a commercial consumer. What shortsighted morons are running that league.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Holy cow! I just finished posting on the prior blog entry about the exact same thing, and now I come and read this. That guy must have some sort of "Lost" capabilities and connection, because that's almost exactly what I just said! Freakin' spooky.
Be that as it may, George, he's absolutely right. If you want to join Terry Pluto in the Taliban, then be my guest. But the likelihood is that in 25 years, we'll all be pining for the days of being able to sit on the toilet and opening up a newspaper with real paper and real newsprint instead of having to push a bunch of buttons on some stupid screen.
This is the real world. Join it.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Does this Tucker guy think this is "his" blog or something? I mean, he tries to monopolize every single topic on every single ABJ blog. Readers are tired of it, and not interested in his egotistical thoughts in any way, shape or form. George (and BJ cohorts), I suggest you simply ignore his ramblings, do not reply to them at all, and then maybe he'll get bored and just go away. Any word you give him, he takes as a sign to launch into another tirade. Please speak to your editors about having his entries removed entirely, or risk losing the rest of your readers. This is not "The Alan Show," and it's time he realizes it.
As for the cable situation, the real world is THIS: People are out of work, companies closing, gas prices doubling, the cost of everything skyrocketing…and we're supposed to cowtow to paying $636 every year to a cable company so we can watch their TNT games and other crap? Families have other priorities before wasting that kind of income. THAT's the real world…welcome to it. If other sheep choose to follow and fall off that cliff, that's their problem. Joe Tait's good enough for me, and besides, the Cavs are so painful to watch on offense, I'm rather glad I don't have to view it.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Tony,
Many times I do just ignore Alan, but when he states something ridiculous I call him on it. Such as this cable crap.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Alan:
Why do you suddenly assume I am a technophobe and resistant to change? Because I'm not. My HDTVs, DVRs and DVD recorders will attest to that. Even when I did movies at the ABJ when there was a technology story to be done, they looked in my direction. But while I can see your flawed logic with respect to regular season games, when it comes to the post seaason, not having local, over-the-air access shows a basic lack of common sense and lacks concern for fans.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Thanks, Tony. Much like David Carradine on those Yellow Book commercials, you speak wise.
And come on, George, since when has any professional sport ever shown genuine concern for the fans?
Hey, here's a suggestion: When every person with a TV will, within the next few years, be forced to buy extra equipment, if not simply spend hundreds or thousands of bucks for a new TV to get that imposed HD that many may not otherwise care one way or another about, then maybe they can take advantage of the opportunity and get themselves some basic cable.
Or, if worst comes to worst, they'll use their wireless computers and steal playoff game reception from their neighbor without spending a penny or leaving the comfort of the house. Problem solved.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Education time, Alan.
You won't have to purchase a high def set to watch television in 2009. You'll be able to do so in one of two ways - add a cheap converter box to your existing set OR just buy a digital TV as opposed to HD one. Why anyone would want to go digital instead of HD I'll never know, but those sets will be noticeably less expensive than HD sets. Hope this eases your concern for the American consumer.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
[...] …more [...]
May 25th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I have to agree with Alan. If someone chooses not to buy cable TV, they're giving up a bit of programming by choice. Shouldn't the guy be just as p.o.'d because he doesn't get TV Land and all the old great wholesome shows that station runs? Does he have a right to every station, even though he doesn't want to pay?
The NBA is a product that sells advertising, and advertisers aren't all that interested in the cheapskate demographic.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
You're missing my point, George. Or maybe you're not missing my point, you just like to bob and weave. High-definition TV wasn't exactly on my mind when I was replying to that guy's (and your) nonsense about what Cleveland's very own Joe TV Viewer is "entitled" to watch.
This isn't about Alan Ameche scoring a touchdown in 1958. This is about commerce. Today. 2007.
If the guy wants to watch programming that's only available on cable TV, satellite, or whatever, then he can either pay for it or, in the alternative, can go watch the programming he wants to see for absolutely free by driving 10 minutes to a restaurant. What's the big deal? Only the Fred Frugals of the world would get upset by any of this, and for a guy to assert he's protecting his son is laughable. No, what he's really protecting is his wallet containing his credit and debit card.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I just re-read the original blog entry, and the more I actually stop and think about it, the dumber and dumber that argument becomes.
The NFL is making the NBA munch their turf because they make all games available to everybody? At no charge? Uh…let's fast-forward to 2007. What about Monday night football games? What about Thursday night football games? How many total games is that, around 25? 26? Whatever it is, it's a lot of games available only to people willing to pay for it.
And it's sheer nonsense to compare the NFL playoffs to the NBA playoffs. Apples to oranges. Never mind the fact there are a mere 16 total regular-season games instead of 82, only one game per week per franchise. Far less supply, far more demand. But if the NFL playoffs were also several seemingly endless seven-game series', it's reasonable to assume the NFL would not hesitate to do something along the lines of what the NBA is doing with the Eastern Conference finals on TNT this year, and if memory serves, the Western Conference finals last year and the year before that.
But hey, at least while Dad is saving some shekels by opening the windows instead of turning on the air conditioning, his kid that's three years away from living in a college dorm is being protected from the evils of satanic programming. Indeed, Cartman on "South Park" and "Shark Week" on the Discovery Channel is what turned Larry into the heathen he is today.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Read the blog entry again, Alan. Personally I think you just like to argue for the hell of it. I wrote that they are made available in a team's LOCAL market if the game is airing on cable. That is an NFL rule.
May 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Let's talk serious. Time Warner paid a lot of money for the rights to air the NBA, and as part and parcel of that package, was the exclusive rights to air the conference finals. Eastern finals now, Western finals previously.
TNT is on BASIC cable. Not premium cable. BASIC cable. Which means the sole people that don't receive the broadcasts are the proverbial bottom-rung cheapskates, like the guy that contacted you, or simply other people on a legitimately tight budget trying to pay the rent. So basically, what we're talking about here are the very people that advertisers don't give a crap about.
But, for the sake of discussion, let's say everything you're arguing for is now possible. In light of the facts, this means a local affiliate, if it was permitted, would purchase the rights to air a game. Correct? Would one be willing to pay Time Warner's steep price? Get real.
No local affiliate would be willing to pay the freight, unless somebody like, oh, I don't know, Spitzer Dodge stepped in and agreed to sponsor the entire broadcast for a small fortune. Why would they? Most of the folks without even basic cable probably can't afford and/or can't qualify for credit to buy a new car in the first place.
Would Dan Gilbert, being the good and kind semaritan he is, step up and bankroll WEWS? Hey, now there's an idea. A televised NBA playoff game sponsored from start to finish by Quicken Loans and Fathead.
Accordingly, what we're debating here is complete fantasy. We might as well be arguing over which Hobbit has the sexiest butt.
The fact is a local restaurant or a local tavern is not going to be sued by the NBA for airing an NBA game for free. Nor, for that matter, does any person have to travel 75 miles outside a blackout radius. You say you don't even have one single solitary friend that has basic cable? Then go drag your cheap behinds off your polyester couches, go bite the bullet, go pay the $3.25 for your gallon of 87-octane gas, and go watch it at one of hundreds of available nearby local NBA destinations.
Hungry and on a budget? The Winking Lizard, Damon's and Hooters all serve potato skins.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
You're a piece of work, Tucker. My guess is you espouse Social Darwinism.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Aahhh and Tucker you assume you know what this parent's reasoning is…Typical. Mind as open as a steel trap.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Maybe you should lay off the metaphors for a while, George!
June 3rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Sports musings and meanderings with George M. Thomas, Alan Tucker and larry d.
June 4th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Did you bring your sockpuppets along for the discussion, Amar?
June 5th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
George, Where you at?