Yeah, we may be 2-20 by the time Christmas comes around, but the Knicks -- New York City Christmas magic (all those fantastic TV shots of Rockefeller Center) -- should always be scheduled for Christmas Day. Just as the Detroit Lions no matter how much they suck are always on Thanksgiving Day, the Knicks should always be given a Christmas Day game.

Terrible move by the networks.

FireWoodson wrote:This is not a good thing.

Yeah, we may be 2-20 by the time Christmas comes around, but the Knicks -- New York City Christmas magic (all those fantastic TV shots of Rockefeller Center) -- should always be scheduled for Christmas Day. Just as the Detroit Lions no matter how much they suck are always on Thanksgiving Day, the Knicks should always be given a Christmas Day game.

Terrible move by the networks.

On every NBA team, there is a "signature" player on the roster ( hopefully), and based on that players Q Score or the cumulative Q Scores of marketable players on that roster, networks make decisions on which games to broadcast. It simply offers more value to the network to gain advertising revenue if Kevin Durant is on national TV than Bradley Beal.

Ahead of Melo, in terms of Q Scores, should be Durant, LBJ, Tim Duncan, Stephen Curry, Dirk Nowitzki, James Harden, Kobe Bryant, Derrick Rose, Dwayne Wade, Damon Lillard, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard and John Wall. Curry should have the highest right now, but that has some recency effect since the championship series.

In general, advertisers and corporations would rather bet on the marketability of other "signature" players on other rosters.

New York isn't the marketing factor here, Melo is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Score

http://mentalfloss.com/article/27489/how-are-q-scores-calculated

Q Score
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Q Score is a measurement of the familiarity and appeal of a brand, celebrity, company, or entertainment product (e.g., television show) used in the United States. The higher the Q Score, the more highly regarded the item or person is among the group familiar with them. Q Scores and other variants are primarily used by the advertising, marketing, media, and public relations industries.

The Q Score is a metric that determines a "quotient" ("Q") factor through mail and online panelists who make up representative samples of the population. The Q score identifies the familiarity of an athlete, brand, celebrity, entertainment offering (e.g., TV show), or licensed property, and measures the appeal of each among people familiar with the entity being measured.[1] Other popular synonyms include Q rating, Q factor, or simply Q.[2]

The Q Score was developed in 1963 by Jack Landis and is owned by Marketing Evaluations, Inc,[3] the company he founded in 1964.[2] Q Scores are calculated for the population as a whole as well as by demographic groups such as age, education level, gender, income, or marital status.[2]

Q Score respondents are given the following choices for each person or item being surveyed:

A. One of my favorites. B. Very Good C. Good D. Fair E. Poor F. Never heard of.

The score is calculated by dividing the percentage of respondents who answer A by the total percentage of respondents who are familiar with the subject (the sum of A through E) times 100.[citation needed]

Other companies have since created other measures and metrics related to the likability, popularity, and appeal of athletes, brands, celebrities, entertainment offerings, or licensed properties. Marketing Evaluations claims the Q Score is more valuable to marketers than other popularity measurements,[3] such as the Nielsen ratings, because Q Scores indicate not only how many people are aware of or watch a show but also how those people feel about the entity being measured. A well-liked television show, for example, may be worth more as a commercial venue to an advertiser than a higher-rated show that people don’t like as much. High emotional bonding with a show means strong viewer involvement and audience attention, which are important indicators for the quality of the show's advertising environment. Viewers who regard the show as a "favorite" have higher awareness of the show's commercial content

How are Q Scores calculated?

The methodology behind the mysterious ratings is actually fairly straightforward. Marketing Evaluations, Inc. polls a representative national sample about performers, brands, TV shows, or some other property. First, it asks respondents if they’ve heard of the performer or show. If a respondent has heard of the relevant entity, the survey asks if they would rate it poor, fair, good, very good, or one of their favorites.

From there, calculating the Q Score is just a quick bit of division. Divide the percentage of people who peg a performer or show as one of their favorites by the percentage of people who have heard of the entity in the first place, drop the decimal points, and you’ve got your Q Score.

For example, according to a 1992 New York Times story, Jaleel White – yep, Steve Urkel – was the day’s top dog when it came to Q Score, narrowly edging out incumbent champ Bill Cosby. While only 53 percent of all respondents were familiar with White, 26 percent of all respondents listed White as one of their favorite performers, which racked up a stout Q Score of 49.
What does the Q stand for?

This simple division is also what gives the score its name. The “Q” stands for “quotient.”
Why do networks and advertisers care so much about favorites?

For all the reasons you’d guess. The Q Scores website explains that consumers or viewers who are exposed to one of their favorite performers or personalities are more likely to be attentive, will have higher recall, and will retain a more positive image of the brand, product, or show in question.
Is there just one Q Score?

Not even close. Marketing Evaluations, Inc. maintains several different Q Score databases, including ones for personalities (both living and dead), sports personalities, characters and licensed properties, TV shows, and consumer brands. There’s also a Cartoon Q that polls a nationwide group of 1800 kids every six months. These databases can be further sorted by age, income level, and similar variables.
Who uses these numbers?

Advertisers and media execs pay big cash for access to the Q Score database. Apparently the numbers can really come in handy when it’s time to cast a new show or sign a new spokesperson.

stopstandthere wrote:So why we're still being removed as we have melo?

":Ahead of Melo, in terms of Q Scores, should be Durant, LBJ, Tim Duncan, Stephen Curry, Dirk Nowitzki, James Harden, Kobe Bryant, Derrick Rose, Dwayne Wade, Damon Lillard, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard and John Wall"

It's not that the networks are saying Melo and the Knicks aren't marketable at all, it's that on the list of best potential for highest return on their investment ( these TV deals are massive), they'd rather highlight and feature other NBA players.

Q Scores operate outside of professional sports. If a movie in production can get Brad Pitt instead of Matt Damon, it will try to do so. If an awards show can get Paul McCartney to perform live instead of Phil Collins, it will do so.

As branding conscious as Melo seems to be, he really isn't anywhere near the top tier of NBA players who can and are branded and marketed on a widespread scale. That doesn't mean he gets no opportunities, but if he calls Nike and Stephen Curry, who isn't even with Nike right now, calls Nike at the same time, Melo is getting put on hold.

The Knicks had a 17 win team last year. While Phil Jackson is always good for some quotes and handling the press, Melo doesn't really do a great job of handling the press and being the kind of interview that generates interest. ( Think of more quotable guys like Michale Irvin, or Warren Sapp, or Charles Barkley )

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Good. My wife's family always watches the game because I am so into it and they give me sh@t or ask questions about why the team is so bad. Aside from my dad, wife, and my boys, there are only a few people I like to watch Knick games with. Too into it and don't want to answer questions.

yo we gotta hit a game at a bar this year

yes please!

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Good. My wife's family always watches the game because I am so into it and they give me sh@t or ask questions about why the team is so bad. Aside from my dad, wife, and my boys, there are only a few people I like to watch Knick games with. Too into it and don't want to answer questions.

yo we gotta hit a game at a bar this year

That would be fun.

The NBA is doing fine with the Knicks sucking ars. What have the Knicks done to deserve a slot on the Christmas lineup? Nothing.

I'm pretty confident that the rest of the country will do just fine without seeing shots of the Rockefeller christmas tree during the NBA telecasts.

FireWoodson wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:
1. The NBA is doing fine with the Knicks sucking ars.

2. What have the Knicks done to deserve a slot on the Christmas lineup?

1. And they would do better if the Knicks were better. There's a reason why David Stern froze that envelope so the one that said KNICKS could be drawn. Largest market in the country. Any sport organization worth a damn desires success for its New York team. Big market equals bigger business opportunities. That's simple 101 Economics.

2. Deserve has nothing to do with it. As I pointed out, the Detroit Lions completely suck for the majority of the past four decades...and they still get that Thanksgiving game. It comes down to a nice tradition. Knicks on Christmas is an NBA tradition. Getting rid of tradition hurts sports. Look at NASCAR moving away from southern tracks to west coast ones. Look at baseball with now interleague play or home openers played in Japan! There is a set pattern that when followed creates a fondness for any sport. Knicks on Christmas Day is part of that pattern. Break tradition and cracks start to form in the organization. Cracks lead to structural failure.

I have no doubt the Knicks will be back on Christmas next year and then on for the years after that. Just mighty mad right now that this season the NBA did away with a tradition that shouldn't have been messed with. Hell, they are still giving us Kobe. Melo and Phil and the Zinger should be on our televisions Christmas Day.

The big market argument is so nineteenth century, it's almost "retro". This is the age of the internet, geography doesn't mean jack **** to markets. New Yorkers will willingly dole out money to watch non big market teams on TV.

SupremeCommander wrote:I am quite pleased about this actually... watching the KNicks get their butt kicked is not my idea of a white Christmas