Too many games! The NBA needs to figure out how to turn this tidal wave of money into more money for the players with a reduced schedule. No more back-to-backs! Reduce injuries, get stars on the court instead of managing load, etc. Players won't accept a pay cut (nor will owners accepts less ticket revenue) but the new deal may solve that problem AND deliver a better product.
(I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the new contract here is for national games. There will always be some good matchup each night. The local TV contracts will all have to be dialed back, as will ticket revenue, and maybe in aggregate the numbers don't work.)
These proposed adjustments are really minor tweaks - whatever bad trends the NBA is experiencing, viewership decline is inevitable due to the realities of how content is delivered. It’s not a bad thing to make improvements - baseball pitch clock is a good idea - but it’s unrealistic to think you can prevent continued fragmentation of viewers.
You forgot the biggest reason that media companies want the broadcast rights: Sports are one of the few things that viewers will still watch live. This means that the advertising revenue is much better than for any scripted programming.
If the NFL were able to renegotiate their deal right now, you'd see a really eye-opening number.
The Elam ending would be interesting. Banning intentional fouls would mostly result in teams giving up earlier.
As a bunch of other people have pointed out, the threat of the three point line spaces out the game and opens up lanes for players to drive. A further out line would result in more packing the paint.
Banning the shift did approximately nothing. In spite of the distance to first base going down, the league wide BABIP didn’t materially change. It was slightly higher than ‘20-‘22 but only higher than two years from ‘04-‘19. The change that made a difference was the pitch clock.
Is there a reason we don't suggest adding a 4pt line? Preserves the current 3, doesn't disrupt a lifetime of experience and training for the players, but allows for greater reward and dynamism in scoring for teams where players are willing and able to take even greater risks.
I don't watch because it's not a thrill to see another slam dunk. Raise the basket 2' so there's some challenge. How about two leagues: one under 6' 3" and freak league?
Since we are discussing experimentation to make a sport more exciting, let's double (or triple) the corner kick radius in soccer from 1 meter to 2 (or 3) meters.
Could the NBA do something like the European soccer Championship?
If they are doing an in-season tournament, why not make it so players are not competing for their NBA team but for teams based on the region of the country where they were born?
It would be extremely dope to see what kind of team could be assembled out of all the talent from California (or you could divide cali in to north and south). If there are too many players from a given state, you could create multiple teams (California A and California B) - picking these teams would be a great topic for the NBA podcasts.
If this had existed in the past we would have seen Kobe Bryant playing for Pennsylvania. In a case like Michael Jordan who was born in NY but moved to Carolina - maybe he'd have to declare for one or the other like a high schooler picking a college.
I think there are a lot of reasons this kind of tournament would be fun. I suggest doing it once every two years to keep it semi special. Round robin then a knockout stage all packed into a three week span like the European Soccer championship, the NBA would have no problem selling the TV rights.
State of origin matches are huge in Australian rules football, the European championship in soccer is massively popular. College football in the USA is an approximation of a regional league. Even in basketball, people love the dream team. I am speculating that people would like to cheer for a team made up of players from their state.
This was a disappointingly vapid argument. I would like to reduce intentional fouls at the end of the game, but overall that’s a pretty minor rule change more akin to dropping the take foul than a real change.
The NBA isn’t meaningfully changing the number of games the NBA plays for the foreseeable future. You might as well ask for the NFL to employee the single winger
People who get worked up over the 3 points shot fundamentally don’t understand how basketball is played now. People are shooting more 3 points shots as much or more than anything because shooting from distance is the only way one can stretch the defense than because they want to shoot 3 point shots. Watch the 2011 NBA finals when it was difficult bordering on impossible by NBA teams by their standards to score without using the 3 point shot. (It’s why the Heat fundamentally changed their approach after the 2011 season by stretching their team out). I do wonder what sort of style do they want NBA teams to use.
The NBA is too cautious to implement changes. Hmmm... The three changes you suggest are smallish. Moving the three back would change style of play. It would be good for old school big men and mid range shooting guards. I’m not convinced it makes the game more exciting. I like seeing Luka shoot step back threes. One of the two players you mentioned as being top draw - Steph Curry - is an all-time great because of the 3-point shot.
The NBA did the in-season tournament this year. We will see how that goes in the long run. But it’s definitely something and goes against the cautious NBA theory.
My guess is this has more to do with structural things in American entertainment that have caused increased fragmentation. The NBA is right to increase the breadth of its fan base because the depth in the US will continue to diminish.
everyone loves to say 3s aren’t exciting, but they are. and their value increases spacing for dunks the other most exciting way to score. 3 point hate and moving back the line is the most lazy shorthand take on how to make live viewership more interesting. unfortunately super teams drive playoff repeats and rivalries which drive viewership. there’s a real tension there between viewership and competitiveness. shortening the season and playoffs would drive up average ratings without a doubt, but would reduce total inventory. the nba is in a tough spot, and needs to dethrone some of nfl’s prime time spots. but the short nfl season makes that near impossible. it’s a tough position to be in. further growth may just come from further international expansion of the league and international competition. the talent is there.
To this fan of international soccer, one of the NBA's problems is very obvious: The regular season is largely meaningless, a long winter's trudge as everyone waits for the playoffs to begin. But in non-US soccer, the regular season has value (there are no playoffs). And on top of that, there are as many as three or even four or five "in-season tournaments" (called "cup competitions") to compete in.
The NBA calendar isn't new, of course, but we have so many more entertainment options today, and the appeal of paying attention to random basketball games between a couple of tanking teams is minimal.
"Just ask the leaders of Blackberry, Blockbuster, and Major League Baseball"
World Series ratings and NBA Finals were pretty similar so not sure where this is coming from. And MLB just did some bold innovations that have worked out well.
The NBA does have some issues. Like you discussed, it does get "buzz" from younger people on social media but how many actually watch the games? You can still make money off "buzz" but ultimately people need to watch the product.
I think both MLB and NBA have an Ouroboros problem where the focus on the playoffs has devalued the regular season. Sure they both make money off playoff TV deals but you need to incentivize people to watch regular season games. The lack of regular season meaning has been a bigger issue for the NBA but it's becoming an issue for baseball too now due to expanded playoffs and playoffs being kind of random.
I will say that Comcast executives aren't dumb. They know the ratings have declined. But ratings have declined for everything. The relative decline of non-football sports ratings still makes them a more valuable property than almost anything, especially since you pretty much have to watch them live. There is still money to be made.
Too many games! The NBA needs to figure out how to turn this tidal wave of money into more money for the players with a reduced schedule. No more back-to-backs! Reduce injuries, get stars on the court instead of managing load, etc. Players won't accept a pay cut (nor will owners accepts less ticket revenue) but the new deal may solve that problem AND deliver a better product.
(I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that the new contract here is for national games. There will always be some good matchup each night. The local TV contracts will all have to be dialed back, as will ticket revenue, and maybe in aggregate the numbers don't work.)
These proposed adjustments are really minor tweaks - whatever bad trends the NBA is experiencing, viewership decline is inevitable due to the realities of how content is delivered. It’s not a bad thing to make improvements - baseball pitch clock is a good idea - but it’s unrealistic to think you can prevent continued fragmentation of viewers.
I dunno, pretty atypical move to put your team up for sale right after you win it all.... sure seems like some folks are calling the top 📈💰📉...
https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/07/01/wyc-grousbeck-announces-hes-selling-celtics/amp/
You forgot the biggest reason that media companies want the broadcast rights: Sports are one of the few things that viewers will still watch live. This means that the advertising revenue is much better than for any scripted programming.
If the NFL were able to renegotiate their deal right now, you'd see a really eye-opening number.
Grab bag of thoughts:
The Elam ending would be interesting. Banning intentional fouls would mostly result in teams giving up earlier.
As a bunch of other people have pointed out, the threat of the three point line spaces out the game and opens up lanes for players to drive. A further out line would result in more packing the paint.
Banning the shift did approximately nothing. In spite of the distance to first base going down, the league wide BABIP didn’t materially change. It was slightly higher than ‘20-‘22 but only higher than two years from ‘04-‘19. The change that made a difference was the pitch clock.
Is there a reason we don't suggest adding a 4pt line? Preserves the current 3, doesn't disrupt a lifetime of experience and training for the players, but allows for greater reward and dynamism in scoring for teams where players are willing and able to take even greater risks.
I don't watch because it's not a thrill to see another slam dunk. Raise the basket 2' so there's some challenge. How about two leagues: one under 6' 3" and freak league?
Since we are discussing experimentation to make a sport more exciting, let's double (or triple) the corner kick radius in soccer from 1 meter to 2 (or 3) meters.
Could the NBA do something like the European soccer Championship?
If they are doing an in-season tournament, why not make it so players are not competing for their NBA team but for teams based on the region of the country where they were born?
It would be extremely dope to see what kind of team could be assembled out of all the talent from California (or you could divide cali in to north and south). If there are too many players from a given state, you could create multiple teams (California A and California B) - picking these teams would be a great topic for the NBA podcasts.
If this had existed in the past we would have seen Kobe Bryant playing for Pennsylvania. In a case like Michael Jordan who was born in NY but moved to Carolina - maybe he'd have to declare for one or the other like a high schooler picking a college.
I think there are a lot of reasons this kind of tournament would be fun. I suggest doing it once every two years to keep it semi special. Round robin then a knockout stage all packed into a three week span like the European Soccer championship, the NBA would have no problem selling the TV rights.
State of origin matches are huge in Australian rules football, the European championship in soccer is massively popular. College football in the USA is an approximation of a regional league. Even in basketball, people love the dream team. I am speculating that people would like to cheer for a team made up of players from their state.
For God's sake eliminate the intentional souls that make the end of a game unwatchable
"eliminate the intentional souls that make the end of a game unwatchable"
Murder isn't the solution, Bronco Jim!
The first thing they should do is change the name of the “In Season Tournament.”.
Call it the Jerry West Cup or something. But it’s a terrible name.
This was a disappointingly vapid argument. I would like to reduce intentional fouls at the end of the game, but overall that’s a pretty minor rule change more akin to dropping the take foul than a real change.
The NBA isn’t meaningfully changing the number of games the NBA plays for the foreseeable future. You might as well ask for the NFL to employee the single winger
People who get worked up over the 3 points shot fundamentally don’t understand how basketball is played now. People are shooting more 3 points shots as much or more than anything because shooting from distance is the only way one can stretch the defense than because they want to shoot 3 point shots. Watch the 2011 NBA finals when it was difficult bordering on impossible by NBA teams by their standards to score without using the 3 point shot. (It’s why the Heat fundamentally changed their approach after the 2011 season by stretching their team out). I do wonder what sort of style do they want NBA teams to use.
The NBA is too cautious to implement changes. Hmmm... The three changes you suggest are smallish. Moving the three back would change style of play. It would be good for old school big men and mid range shooting guards. I’m not convinced it makes the game more exciting. I like seeing Luka shoot step back threes. One of the two players you mentioned as being top draw - Steph Curry - is an all-time great because of the 3-point shot.
The NBA did the in-season tournament this year. We will see how that goes in the long run. But it’s definitely something and goes against the cautious NBA theory.
My guess is this has more to do with structural things in American entertainment that have caused increased fragmentation. The NBA is right to increase the breadth of its fan base because the depth in the US will continue to diminish.
everyone loves to say 3s aren’t exciting, but they are. and their value increases spacing for dunks the other most exciting way to score. 3 point hate and moving back the line is the most lazy shorthand take on how to make live viewership more interesting. unfortunately super teams drive playoff repeats and rivalries which drive viewership. there’s a real tension there between viewership and competitiveness. shortening the season and playoffs would drive up average ratings without a doubt, but would reduce total inventory. the nba is in a tough spot, and needs to dethrone some of nfl’s prime time spots. but the short nfl season makes that near impossible. it’s a tough position to be in. further growth may just come from further international expansion of the league and international competition. the talent is there.
To this fan of international soccer, one of the NBA's problems is very obvious: The regular season is largely meaningless, a long winter's trudge as everyone waits for the playoffs to begin. But in non-US soccer, the regular season has value (there are no playoffs). And on top of that, there are as many as three or even four or five "in-season tournaments" (called "cup competitions") to compete in.
The NBA calendar isn't new, of course, but we have so many more entertainment options today, and the appeal of paying attention to random basketball games between a couple of tanking teams is minimal.
"Just ask the leaders of Blackberry, Blockbuster, and Major League Baseball"
World Series ratings and NBA Finals were pretty similar so not sure where this is coming from. And MLB just did some bold innovations that have worked out well.
The NBA does have some issues. Like you discussed, it does get "buzz" from younger people on social media but how many actually watch the games? You can still make money off "buzz" but ultimately people need to watch the product.
I think both MLB and NBA have an Ouroboros problem where the focus on the playoffs has devalued the regular season. Sure they both make money off playoff TV deals but you need to incentivize people to watch regular season games. The lack of regular season meaning has been a bigger issue for the NBA but it's becoming an issue for baseball too now due to expanded playoffs and playoffs being kind of random.
I will say that Comcast executives aren't dumb. They know the ratings have declined. But ratings have declined for everything. The relative decline of non-football sports ratings still makes them a more valuable property than almost anything, especially since you pretty much have to watch them live. There is still money to be made.