|
SPORTS BIZ FEATURE STORY "Nobody
Beats Sports Biz" ESP N: IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING December
9, 2011 (New York) In 1982, comic genius Mel Brooks did a rap parody based on his film, "History of the World Part I"
entitled "It's Good to be the King." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXT-nYHOLsU). When it comes to subscription fees, ESPN is the undisputed king.
According to sports business
guru Darren Rovell, ESPN charges the highest subscription fee. Subscription fees are what a network charges a carrier/distributor
(e.g. Cablevision or Time Warner) for the right to carry its content. The distributor then charges the
subscriber a monthly fee that is equal or more than what it (distributor) is being charged. Of course, it's more--how
would the distributors make money?
TNT is second and charges a subscription fee of $1.16. ESPN charges $4.69--which
is more than four times what the second highest subcription fee is. Rovell claims that if you add the other ESPN channels
(i.e., ESPN 2, ESPN U, ESPN Deportes, etc.), it's closer to $7.
That's why ESPN can afford to pay
$1.8 billion annually to carry Monday Night Football. The other networks are trying to make inroads, but it may be too
late. The spray is out the can. ESPN his smarter, hipper, hungrier, more diverse, and edgier than its counterparts.
"Worldwide Leader in Sports" is not just a slogan. ESPN has made it a manifestation. "It's
good to be the king--oooh la la!"
THE NBA/NFL DISAGREEMENT:
THE REAL FIGHT IS OVER MEDIA RIGHTS June 22, 2011 (New York) The so-called experts will tell you the NBA/NFL vs their respective Players' Union
is about salary caps, small market vs big market teams, revenue splits, etc. This is partially true; however, the
real fight is over the windfall that will come from media rights. Let's take a look into the future of broadcasting.
The television, conceptually, begins in the latter part of the 19th century. The first television set, as we
know it, was invented in the 1920s (please note there were prototypes that were around from the 1880s). The
television has evolved from black and white, small screen contraption to a 3-D, color, several yards wide, flat screen device
that can connect to other electronic and digital devices.
Broadcasting, originally, was a term used to describe
the process of scattering seeds on a farm over a wide region. However, when we think of "broadcasting" today,
it means the distribution of audio and/or video content to a vast audience. Television broadcasting has gone from analog
to digital technology, a major stride. Digital transmission is more robust and efficient which can result in limitless
possibilities.
Advertising, especially via television, has remained static for the most part. Generally speaking,
an advertiser pays a broadcaster for the privilege of running an ad/commercial--in essence, the advertiser is a "paying"
programmer. Commercial spots have gone from 15 seconds to, in the most extreme cases (infomercials), hours. The
broadcaster determines the fee advertisers will pay based on a myriad of factors (time slot, program type, audience, etc.).
Broadcasters and advertisers needed to gauge the audience. The "best" but not good resort was the Nielsen
system. The Nielsen system is pseudo scientific and lacks validity--but it was the best thing going. You can't
sample a few thousand and make presumptions regarding the viewing habits of tens of millions. That's proposterous.
Digital technology has changed that significantly. Broadcasters can know (not if you're actually watching) what
channel is on and for how long.
Having more accurate data is what broadcasters and advertisers desire. Advertisers
want a better sense as to how many people are likely to view their ads. With advertising rates being so costly (think
Super Bowl where 30 seconds is $3 million), advertisers are concerned about their return on investment. Many advertisers
probably believe they have been overpaying when revenue and/or consumer adoption has not increased significantly after an
ad has run. Broadcasters countered that the commercials may simply have been poorly designed or executed. However,
digitizing the broadcast medium makes for more accurate tracking.
How does this impact the NBA and NFL labor talks
(or should I say fight)? Look at it this way, the year is 2020. The television monitor is 75X100 (length times
width). Your basic cable subscription fee is $150. With the screen being so large, you have several (up to eight)
mini screens within the large screen area. You can manipulate the mini screens' sizes and arrangement.
There is one mini screen showing a television program, another mini screen allows you to surf the web, two mini screens enable
you to engage in a live video chat, and another screen streams commercials.
It gets better. If
you decide to watch a sporting event, e.g., football, there will be an option to view the game in auto or manual mode.
Auto mode is the screen showing the angles controlled by the broadcaster. Manual mode is the screen showing angles controlled
by you! You become the defacto technical director. There is a larger mini screen and three smaller mini screens.
You can switch the angle from one mini screen to another mini screen. Let's say the larger mini screen is showing
the wide angle shot, and one of the smaller mini screens is focused on the quarterback. You will be able to transpose
the two shots from the large mini screen to the small mini screen. This is the Picture in Picture innovation redux.
You may want to view a particular play over, from multiple angles. You may want to use slow motion replay. There
may be a mini screen that has key statistics and/or scores of other games. In other words, you, the viewer, are controlling
the viewing experience.
In a subsequent article, we'll examine another battle that is taking place--the "live"
spectating experience vs. the "remote" spectating experience. That's why you build billion-dollar stadiums
so the "at-game" experience remains superior to the "at-home" experience.
The aggregate data
based on demographics, psychographics, geographics, and behavior/lifestyle indicators will give advertisers incrementally
superior information quality. This will enable advertisers to effectively segment the market and select specific targets.
For the most part, advertisers will know what you watch, when you watch, how long you watch, what you're likely to watch
(or not watch)--and then add to this info, your residence, income, occupation/job title, purchases (in the mid 1990s, Prof.
Peter Aviles predicted the coming of the "cashless" society by the first quarter of this century which makes it
relatively simple to monitor purchases), hobbies, associates/peers, etc.
How does this play itself out in terms
of advertising? While we might be watching the same program, at the same time, on the same channel, and live next door
to each other, the commercial "piped" in to my television moniotor might differ from the commercial "piped"
in to your television monitor. I'll see the Chevrolet commercial while your viewing the Chrysler commercial.
The advertiser is not nearly as interested in reaching large audiences (quantity) as much as reaching specific
(target) audiences. More bang for the buck. That means broadcasters are providing greater assurances to advertisers
that they (broadcasters) can provide advertisers with "acute" access to their target market.
Cable companies
are going to have subscription packages for passive, moderate, or active viewership. You will pick the 500 channels
instead of being able to choose only a few premium channels. Television viewing is moving quickly towards the "Burger
King" model--Have it Your Way!
Advertisers finally get to reap tremendous benefits due to the innovations
of television sets and in broadcasting. Advertisers will pay higher fees to advertise via the television medium,
but get disproportionately higher returns (in their favor).
What does this have to do with the labor negotiations
in pro football and baskteball? Everything. Broadcast rights is the real battle that is being waged. Broadcast
rights are going to go through the roof, and more than a few folks on both sides (union and management) know this. One
percentage point less in the owner-players split could mean billions of dollars. Billions.
There's a
precedent. In 1960, the broadcast rights for the Olympic games was $390,000. By 1976, the broadcast rights for
the Montreal games was $25 million. Did the cost of living increase by that much in a sixteen-year period? By
1980, four years later, the media rights soared to more than triple the previous amount to $87 million. NBC just paid
$1.43 billion for the 2020 games (site undetermined).
The advertising paradigm is getting ready to undergo a seismic
shift. The money is going to be gargantuan. It's not about hard or soft salary caps. It's not about
rookie wage scales. It's not about lengthening the regular season. It's not about health coverage for
retirees. That's all window dressing. The real fight is for the right...
Media rights, that is,
and the money that will come from it.
BASKETBALL LIES (I MEAN WIVES) SET FOR L.A. SPIN-OFF June 20, 2011 (New York) Scandolous but brilliant. The mis-titled "Basketball Wives" (because
for the most part the cast is ex-wives or girlfriends) is expanding its brand by adding a Los Angeles spin-off. The
"Housewives of ..." (fill-in the blank) franchise did it--why not "Basketball Wives"? Can New York,
Atlanta, and Chicago be far behind?
The image-conscious commissioner of the N.B.A., David Stern, can't be happy.
He is probably (in between the current N.B.A. negotiations and draft) trying to torpedo the show as we speak. When ESPN
produced and aired a "fictional" dramatic series ("Playmakers") about the lives of football players,
the NFL (an ESPN partner) placed tremendous pressure on the network to discontinue the show even though the ratings were strong.
Stern has no such arrangement with VH1 so he does not have a lot of leverage, but he is probably mustering his formidable
resources to stop shows like "Basketball Wives" which are harmful to the players' and therefore league's
image.
Gone are the days when talent was a prerequisite for being on television. Why pay an actor $5 million
dollars per episode plus high residual fees when you can garner high ratings and reduce your production costs and salary expense
by tens of millions? Quality doesn't matter, only the dollar.
The public doesn't realize that
the concept of "Reality TV" doesn't really exist. Not that the people who appear on these shows are actors,
but come on--so much of it is "staged." Act crazy, fight, spit, curse, get drunk, and throw things, and
you'll be a household name. Simple formula to figure out.
The "Basketball Wives" franchise
has been so successful that it has spawned a spin-off that will be set in Los Angeles. As long as the Los Angeles "wives"
stick to the script and act crazy, fight, spit curse, and get drunk, they will be as talked about and watched as their Miami
counterparts.
No doubt you will have the original Basketball Wives meeting (or should I say battling) the L.A.
Basketball Wives. And they will battle. Nobody is tuning in to see peaceful resolution. The public's
appetite has been whetted to appreciate negativity.
You may even have a cross battle like "Housewives of Atlanta"
vs "Basketball Wives."
Crazier still, NeNe (Housewives of Atlanta) vs Evelyn (Basketball Wives) on Wrestlemania.
Don't think it's not being discussed (or should I say Disgust?).
Who would ever have thought that the "sane
ol' days" of reality tv was when there was shows like "Flavor of Love"?
Flavor Flaaaav--where
are you?
TENNIS ANYONE! TENNIS MEDIA RIGHTS ARE THE NEW FRONTIER
June 7, 2011 (New York) Tennis is a sport that has had its "ups" and "downs" in terms of popularity
in the U.S. With the Williams sisters in a state of "semi-retirement" (just face it, tennis pays the bills for them,
but they are enjoying other pursuits) and with Andy Roddick seemingly a second-tier player, the sport is not enjoying its
finest moment. However, the sport is still attractive enough to broadcasters (and hopefully advertisers) to create "astronomical"
bidding.
The French Open concluded this weekend on a ratings downer and upper. The "downer" ratings
were on the women's side of the draw. The match between first-time Grand Slam champion Li Na and Francesa Schiavone
had a 1.7 rating which was the second lowest women's final since 1998.
The "upper" ratings came from the match between historic rivals Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.
Nadal was going for his sixth French Open title against the man who has won the most Grand Slam titles, Federer. The
ratings were 2.6 which was the highest rating since Agassi played Medvedev in 1999. That match garnered a 4.0.
Enough said.
Wimbeldon's deal with NBC ends after next month's tournament. NBC paid $13 million annually
for the rights and wants to retain those rights. Enter ESPN that has two more years left on the deal. The "Sports
Leader" is looking to expand its coverage to include NBC's (package). This would take Wimbledon off of "free" tv.
NBC reportedly paid $4.38 billion for the Olympics media rights (2014, 2016, 2018,
and 2020). That's a whole lotta bubble gum. NBC may want to capitalize on the momentum or reload. The network
may still be in "spend" mode or it may be tapped out.
ESPN purchased media rights for the Australian Open and French. The four-year deals inked
last week includes the Finals for the Australian Open and the women's semi-finals for the French Open.
CBS has the rights to the U.S. Open along with ESPN that has the cable deal. CBS and the
USTA extended the deal in January to 2014.
Tennis has long been a sport that is attractive to broadcasters because the audience tends to
be wealthier and better educated which allows advertisers of high-end products/services to reach their coveted target
markets. Tennis' rise in popularity started with the Jimmy Connors, Arthur Ashes, John McEnroes, Ivan Lendls, Bjorn
Borgs, Billie Jean Kings, Chris Everts, and Martina Navratolovas of the sport. They injected personality into a
somewhat "stuffy" sport, and it translated well from a ratings perspective. During the late 1980s, there was the launch
of tennis greats Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Michael Chang, Jim Courier, Michael Stich, Boris Becker, Malvai Washington, et
al that made men's tennis must-see tv. On the women's side, the entry of Steffi Graf, Jennifer Capriati, and Monica
Seles led to equally exciting tennis and paved the wave for the Williams sisters, Lindsey Davenport, Martina Hingis, and Anna
Kournokova (who was more pin-up model than tennis player--even though she acutally was talented but focused more on her other
"attributes").
Gone are the days of that kind of star power, but the sport showcases premium athleticism
as well as any sport. The waning participation of the Williams sisters has taken the air out of women's tennis.
While there are many talented women players, they don't bring the Williams pizzazz.
On the men's side, "Where have you gone Andy Roddick?" He is as talented as Nadal or Federer.
He can make every shot. His serve is untouchable. He 's good looking. Model wife. But his star
has never reached its zenith. It's not that he has not dedicated himself but rather it is his will or lack of.
He doesn't possess the same kind of "steely" nerves and hunger of the two aforementioned champions. Roddick has just
one Grand Slam victory which is shameful for someone with his skills set. Most experts would have predicted that he
would have at least five Slam events by now. It doesn't seem like he'll win another Major with the likes of Nadal, Federer,
and Djokovic lurking.
Regardless of the somewhat bleak state of American tennis, the networks will continue to
"fight for the (media) rights."
Fox wants a piece of the pie, and the Tennis Channel can't afford to not cover the Majors.
It will only get more interesting as the broadcasters try to "Ace" each other. Tennis Anyone?
NBC HAS BECOME THE BIGGEST LOSER!
June 2, 2011 (New York) Pitiful is the only words to describe the ratings of the National Broadcasting
Company (NBC). The once proud network that boasted some of the greatest television programs ever produced is languishing as
a fourth-rate network--in a four network race.
Right now, the network has to pin its hopes on the NHL Finals pulling strong ratings and that
seems unlikely. Last year's finals between the Chicago Blackhawks and Philadelphia Flyers garnered the highest rating
in 36 years. The sixth and final game of the series that had the Blackhawks winning the Stanley Cup for the first time
since 1961 received a 5.8 rating.
This year's finals between the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks does not have the same glamour that
last year's final had--in part, because one team hails from Canada. (That does not mean the matchup doesn't have great
appeal in Canada; it just means that in the States, two American teams would generate more interest.) However, if NBC
is pinning its hopes on this year's Finals producing a ratings bonanza, the network is sadly mistaken.
The schedule has been botched by having one weekend game, Saturday, June 4th. Weekends
are generally good for sports programing. NBC could have easily scheduled a game for Saturday, June 11th. The
NBA has a Game 6 (if necessary) scheduled for June 12th so there is no scheduling conflict. Go figure.
As America's first radio (November 15, 1926) and television (July 1, 1938) network, NBC, that
was recently purchased by Comcast, should not be a bottom-feeder network. For the week ending May 29th, only "The Biggest
Loser" and "Voice" were in the top 25--and they were 17th and 19th respectively.
NBC/Versus just purchased the NHL media rights for $187 million annually which is significantly
higher than the $78 million per year they are currently paying. For this year's prime-time season, NBC is last with
an average rating of 4.3%. (Just so you know how dismal that is: ABC is 5.3%; Fox is 5.5%; and CBS is 7.0%.)
This is a network in trouble. Thank goodness it (NBC) regained NFL broadcasting rights
(Sunday Night Football), but the network lost MLB and the NBA. Clearly, NBC overpaid for hockey, and if it hopes to
capture the Olympic broadcast rights for 2014 (Russia) and 2016 (Brazil), it (NBC) will have to overbid. Don't think
that Fox, ESPN, and the CBS-Turner alliance are unaware of NBC's tenuous position.
Throw in the "Ebersol" factor (his recent and sudden departure still reverberates) and NBC's
desperation has increased exponentially. Dick Ebersol was the network's premier "poker" player (metaphorically
speaking) in the high stakes drama of media rights bidding. Of course Ebersol wanted the Olympics, but he was
not about to overbid. He's "suckerproof."
Next Monday and Tuesday (June 6 & 7) begins the selling of Olympic rights for 2014 and 2016
(as previously mentioned). The meeting will take place in Switzerland and will have a monumental impact on broadcasters,
advertisers, digital platform and device makers, and consumers.
The drama is high and the future of the network is at stake. Will NBC be the "Biggest Winner"
or the "Biggest Loser"?
Don't touch that dial.
TOO MUCH FAN-FARE: TNT SEEKS SAFE HAVEN
TNT MOVES "INSIDE THE NBA" INSIDE
May 24, 2011 (New York) Charles Barkley ain't nobody to mess with (like Wu Tang Clan) but fan behavior
is resembling mob behavior nowadays so TNT did something to protect Barkley from the fans and Barkley from himself: They
moved "Inside the NBA" to a safe place: Inside!
Having animated fans as part of the backdrop provided "live theater" and made an already exciting show--Inside
the NBA (with Charles Barkley, Ernie Johnson, Kenny Smith, and Chris Webber)--more entertaining. But, "live theater"
has become the "theater of the absurd" and "animated fans" have become "animalistic fans." This past Sunday, (May 22), during
the post-game show, the fan behavior was completely outlandish. Thank goodness the "suits" at TNT thought it better
to move the pre- and post-game show to safe haven.
Many journalists are apprehensive when it comes to calling out fan behavior. It has reached a level
that is beyond disturbing. For those of us who are "older" and can remember when fans respected the players (whether
they played for your favorite team or not), teams, and the fans, we are "punking out" by not schooling the "younger" fans.
The business model in sports is such that it is extracting a hefty ransom for the privilege of seeing a
game live. That does not give license for boorish behavior. Many journalists tell fans that they (fans) have a
right to boo and jeer. They do, but in moderation. (Booing is for ghosts anyway!)
Fans today boo their own players/teams. How stupid is that? You're turning the homefield advantage
into the homefield disadvantage. Yankee "fans" have booed Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera. I rest my case.
There was a time when opposing players who were destined for the Hall of Fame were applauded by the fans during
away games. It showed sophistication and respect. During the late 1960s, my great father, Rupert Benton, took
me to many a ball game. If we went to a Mets game and they were playing the Pittsburgh Pirates, Roberto Clemente was
applauded every time he came to the plate. It wasn't a rousing applause, but it was respectful. That fan is long
gone. The fan today is more fool than fan.
I saw "fandom" or "fandumb" changing in the mid 1970s. Baseball was played in the day mostly and was
the kind of sport the whole family could enjoy. Take these two elements, day and family, and you see why behavior at
ballparks and arenas was so different. (Think: "Take me out to the Ball Game") As night games became more popular,
especially for the purposes of prime-time television broadcasts, that made the game less family friendly. With less
children and families at games, there was a dramatic shift in what became acceptable behavior.
More liquor, especially beer. Beer advertisements rank fourth in the sports arena. (Go
research "Beer Night" in Cleveland during the 1970s when the fans went beserk.) You have fans that are stone drunk by
the fifth inning. They become vile, abusive, and violent. The family of the young man who was attacked in Dodger
stadium is suing the Dodgers. May the jury be with them (the family).
There are terrible incidents at ballparks and arenas every day that are not reported. Pure ugliness.
I can recall when "a bunch of us" went to see the Yankees-Red Sox in June of 1977. There were so many fights at the
games--mostly amongst the Yankee fans (Yankee fan on Yankee fan violence). Reggie Jackson hit a walkoff and the fans
purchased and then started burning Red Sox pennants. One of the greatest ironies was the police protection around Yankee
Stadium at that time. Supposedly the large show of force was to protect the gentile fans from the South Bronx residents,
but truth be told, the South Bronx residents needed protection from the fans.
Fans pay exorbitant prices, so the media, teams, and leagues look the other way. You have fans that
run on to the field, throw objects at players, spit, etc. They should be dealt with--harshly. But, as long as
they pay, everything is cool.
Back to Barkley and TNT.
Barkley seems to be a genuinely nice guy. He has no pretense, very different from his good friend,
His Airness. But Barkely has a hair-trigger temper. If you step to him wrong, he'll step right back, and then
step on you. Simply put, "Barkley don't play dat." The Miami fans were/are upset with him because he has criticized
the Heat. That's his job--Hello!
The real question is what does it mean for sports journalists and pundits? Do they have to adjust
their predictions and critiques to appease the fraudbase. Stay tuned or should I say, "Stay Inside."
BUYING THE SADDLE BEFORE THE HORSE
NBC SELLS HALF ITS 2012 SUPERBOWL ADS!
May 23, 2011 (New York) The song goes, "There's no business like
show business." Well that was 1946, and the composer was Irving Berlin. This is 2011 and the lyrics have changed:
"There's no business like sports business.
Nothing illustrates this point more than NBC selling nearly half its Super Bowl XLVI (46) ads for the "upcoming"
football season. Something tells me the recession is a "has-been." At least for "certain people." We are
led to believe there may be no football season yet NBC is selling ad space for the Super Bowl like iTunes sells songs.
I didn't get the memo--you probably didn't either. But let's just say some particularly smart people
(who get paid to be particularly smart) see fit to sell ad space or buy ad space for a sport that might have no season.
According to Ad Week staff writer Anthony Crupi, NBC is selling ads for more than $3 million for a 30-second commercial.
Thus far, auto manufacturers are buying the most ads. This is a significant economic barometer since automobile purchases
are the first or second most expensive purchases made by most people.
Other industries that refuse to be left behind include: telecom, quick-service restaurants (qsr's--don't call
them fast-food joints), beverages, insurance, movies, pharmaceuticals, and credit cards & financial services; these industries
are buying ad space as well.
These advertisers along with broadcaster Comcast/NBC will bring tremendous pressure to bear on the NFL and
NFLPA to reach an accord. (What did Bruce Lee say in Enter the Dragon: "Why doesn't somebody just take a 45 and
bang--settle it?) Well, it looks like the advertisers and broadcaster have gun in hand. They are not going to
commit millions of dollars--though they have billions--just to have foolishness disturb their plans.
If they have to make an offer the NFL and NFLPA can't refuse, consider that offer made. If they have
to put money in the coiffures of presidential candidates (including the President) to prevent an aborted season, know that
the money is already in these candidates' accounts.
The companies in the aforementioned industries can't boost their bottomlines without aggressive advertising.
The Super Bowl is the premier broadcast vehicle for advertisers. It (Super Bowl) happens once a year. What are
these advertisers supposed to do--wait another year? Not hardly!
The advertisers will lock Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith in a room and not let them come out until they've
resolved their differences. Otherwise, these advertisers will, "Just take a 45 and BANG--settle it!"
Looks like they bought the saddle, but believe me, they already bought the horse.
THE HATE, I MEAN HEAT, BOOST TNT RATINGS
May 19, 2011 (New York) TNT doesn't care if you love 'em or hate 'em, just as long as you watch them.
Thus far, the Hate the Heat produced has been a ratings bonanza. Let's see the numbers.
On Sunday, May 15, game one of the Eastern Conference Finals featuring the Miami Heat and Chicago Bulls drew
a 6.2 rating. That number translates to 11.1 million viewers and made that game the most watch sporting event in cable
television history. More impressively, it beat all comers (meaning cable and broadcast) in terms of viewership.
On Wednesday, May 18, the Heat-Bulls matchup delivered a 6.1 rating for 10 million which beat out all cable broadcasts and
all the other networks with the exception of Fox. How do you spell American Idol? But still, "fantabulous" numbers
for TNT.
The question is why? Why the spike in ratings? It's the Hate, I mean Heat. They are must-see tv.
When they lost on Sunday, half of the people said, "I told you so," and the other half jumped ship. Every game is going
to evoke tremendous emotion with each game's importance increasing exponentially.
"I'm taking my talents to ..." those were the words that set it off. Bron-Bron announced on ESPN that
he's "outty" in Cleveland and "inny" in Miami, and the earth spinned off its axis. Do you remember something called
the "Lebron Watch"? So, New York was pissed. Chicago was pissed. And Cleveland was (this is a family show).
Former NBA greats weighed in. There was the pep rally. The dance. The prediction. And the Hate.
The Hate followed the Heat everywhere. The Hate for Bron-Bron spilled onto Dwayne Wade. It even
soiled Bosh (who is guilty by assoication). It spread to the coach, and then the entire team.
The most-unknown b-ball journalist, Jerald Hoover, likened Bron-Bron to a bully who can't take the "Heat"
when confronted. Skip Bayless of ESPN can't bring himself to compliment Bron-Bron. Bayless blames him for all
things bad. Charles Barkley says that Bron-Bron is too sensitive.
When the Heat beat the Celtics in the conference semi-finals, the media turned the "Hate" I mean "Heat" up
because they (the Heat) were too celebratory.
TNT's contract with the NBA ends after the 2015-2016 season. This coincides with the Heat's probable
ability to contend meaningfully for the NBA title. For TNT, nothing could be sweeter. As long as viewers keep the "Hate"
I mean "Heat" index up.
|
