An NBA season with games only twice a week and teams actually practicing and preparing for specific opponents and caring about every game would be so awesome.
Love the idea of 44 games. NBA and whoever else runs international tournaments (FIBA?) can then expand and make these games relevant, similar to soccer with the World Cup and Euros. With the basketball becoming so international, I believe this is a massive opportunity. Fun fact, no American has won the MVP since the ‘17-‘18 season.
For the mechanics of the NBA game itself, adopt the Elam ending and allow players to inbounds the ball on their own, similar to soccer, to keep the pace flowing. Why do we wait for refs to waltz over every time? Anything close, ref blows the whistle deals with it. It’s pretty obvious, 60%-70% of the time, whose possession it is.
The flow of a FIBA game is like butter, the NBA is a total rock fight from a viewers perspective. I understand there are economic factors at play but is less ad money short term, worth gaining market share back in the long term, from TikTok, YouTube and Netflix? The NBA must disrupt their own business model or the market will do it for them.
Yeah the long season is archaic. Here's what I think happened.
In 1900, they said - playing baseball is fun and people don't have anything else to do. So let's just play every day when the weather is nice. People watched, rooted for the home team and went home. Probably people weren't as concerned with championships, legacies, etc. Its was just simple, daily entertainment. And it made financial sense too.
Hockey and basketball built on that. Played as often as they reasonably could. Tried to give as many fans the opportunity to see a sport in person. And again, it was more about rooting for the home team, being entertained etc.
For whatever reasons, perspectives have changed and we now massively value championships over day to day games. So the model makes no sense in the current environment. With the modern incentives, it literally makes zero sense for NBA teams to go as hard as they can for 82 games. There is no real solution.
From a viewing perspective the only solution is to see the games as entertainment rather than maximum competition. This is how I view the NBA. I like watching these guys play basketball. There are nuances and specific aspects of players that I ilke. But I'm not expecting 1 million percent competitiveness during the regular season because it makes no sense for teams and players to behave that way.
I think you can do it with 82 games, but you need to cut the postseason to only be the best regular season teams from the conferences, or restructure to two divisions per conference and only have the four division winners make the postseason. Regular season will matter then.
This is something I’ve been preaching. Long season plus expanded playoffs is nonsense. Why care? 16 teams make it. They don’t even need a winning record. You can have one or the other. This is why I dislike the baseball expanded playoffs.
I’ve been preaching this for years. The nba regular season is a formality. One I have next to no interest in following day to day. I do not care. I’ve literally tried to care. I’ve said “this is the year I’m going to watch more games” but the thing is. They don’t matter. It’s just a bunch of men stat padding.
If you’re going to have a long season make the playoffs really matter. The second problem with the nba is what? Half the teams. Actually more than half the teams make the playoffs. 16!!! Teams will play through the regular season and make the playoffs. And you can easily pencil in what? 10-12 of them day one? What am I watching? Why am I watching?
If you’re going to have a long season you can’t have half the teams make the playoffs. It dilutes the product. Can you imagine the last month of the nba season if only 8 teams total made the playoffs? There would be so much jockeying for position it would be must watch. That last week of games would be full of heart break and triumph. But instead of giving us any of that during the season they backloaded all of that fun stuff into the playoffs. And the nba playoffs are great. It makes me wonder why even have the season? (I know why. Ticket sales and ads). But the baby is being thrown out with the bath water.
Even the NFL going to 17 games and adding a playoff team I think was a long term mistake. Teams with sub .500 records should automatically be eliminated from playoff contention in any sport. 47 teams in the nba have made the playoffs with a losing record. Again. What is even the point of the regular season in the nba? It’s essentially scrimmage. It’s just pre-postseason.
I’m totally on your side, I think fewer and more meaningful games makes for a better product, and a restrictive playoff structure is good to make sure the regular season is meaningful. Unfortunately, money is the driving factor for these decisions. I hated the introduction of the 7 seed to the NFL playoffs and still do, but the money speaks for itself, the revenue poured in, and we’re not going back. No one is contracting the schedule unless forced to.
I love the long baseball regular season. Going to a game IRL is a whole different animal from watching on TV. The weather is usually nice, and each stadium has its own unique vibe and architecture. 81 home games means you have so many opportunities to catch a game.
Long NBA and NHL regular seasons are more problematic since each league's playoffs go on forever and its obvious players are saving energy for them.
I think baseball is the sport best placed to weather the RSN collapse because it makes more money on attendance than the other sports do. Attending an MLB game and observing how many people are there for a nice day out and don't actually know much about the team compared to any other sport is eye-opening.
Also, I recently completed my quest of seeing a game at every current MLB ballpark. Can't imagine doing that with NBA/NHL arenas; what's the point? They all look the same.
I'm a huge baseball fan, but I go to plenty of games with friends who don't care about baseball at all and just for the atmosphere. I can't think of any other major sport where this is the case
How about networking issues? I feel like that doesn’t get talked about enough.
Irvine Welsh once wrote that soccer was the international language for men - that men with nothing at all in common could still have real connection and interaction with each other by discussing soccer. In the States it was always baseball/football when I was growing up. I think that a big part of the reason people kept up with these sports is the pleasure in participating in these discussions.
As viewership has dropped I’ve noticed that this isn’t true anymore for baseball. People my age will still bring it up, but even among my aged crowd it’s no longer assured that everyone will be able to participate, and so it’s fading. I expect the fewer mileage people get out of baseball knowledge in real life the less people will tune in.
I can’t imagine what it’s like for the under 20 folks. Do they talk about baseball at all? I feel like fantasy sports is a big reason it’s still holding on.
If I’m right, even if MLB makes the changes you propose, how do you rebuild this? It’s like trying to stir cream out of the coffee. Once the social aspect of sports is degraded I don’t think it’s quick to rebuild.
This reminds me of a Chuck Klosterman quote from a BS Report from like 2007 that I still think about all the time.
"When I'm going somewhere with my wife, the ONLY thing I'm thinking is 'I hope someone there likes sports.'". He went on to say it doesn't matter the sport, the team, whatever - you can talk to that guy. 10 years later I got married and that is what I think about every time.
I'm a huge NBA / Hawks fan (I know!) and have been for 40 years. I've been of the opinion the last few seasons that the league would benefit from making Christmas Day the big season kick-off.
No one really pays attention when the NBA starts (except degenerates like myself) while college and pro football are in full swing, and the NBA already kind of owns Christmas Day (as well as MLK Day). I think it would be best for everyone.
I've been saying for years Christmas should be NBA opening day. I've heard the NBA wouldn't do it because the season would bleed into the summer which generally is not a good time for tv ratings. But with a shorter schedule, that wouldn't be a problem.
What are we gonna do bros. To early to blow it up? Losing JJ took a lot of early momentum. He was looking like comeback player of the year, justifying my JJ Stanning for the last two or three season
Big Tone is just too damn involved in the personnel moves that I can't see them blowing it up and admitting that his son has no clue how to build a team. So I'm expecting Siakam at some point.
I don't disagree with this, but what does reducing the schedule in a meaningful and permanent way look like? Let's take that ESPN article from 2011 suggesting 44 games. Friend of mine works at the NBA says that although they command much less advertising revenue per game than the NFL, the fact that they play so many games means it almost makes up for the difference. So by cutting your season in half to 44 games, isn't that just asking to cut revenue in half? The owners will hate to pay players the same for half the work, or alternatively the players just make half of what they used to make, which the players will hate. Now of course, fewer more meaningful games might lead to increased revenue since they are more scarce and then we haven't lost much money. But if it's true that part of the reason for the slide is that sports in general, and not merely inventory sports, though they are getting the worst of it, are competing with too many other entertainment options, as some evidence tends to show, then scarcity won't fully solve the problem. So then maybe reducing the games is just leaving money on the table
Sports media people love this idea because they like the idea of going to fewer games where players try harder. Ignoring that half the revenues are ticket sales, not TV rights. So you are cutting a big source of revenue to chase hopefully more per game from the other source. It just doesn't make sense.
Well, no doubt you could raise ticket prices, but could you do it enough to compensate sufficiently? I have no idea, I am just wondering how you sell this risk/reward to the league/teams/players
It probably doesn't happen until their forced to. If the HOS predictions are correct and viewership continues to decline, my guess is we will see a time when league revenue stagnates or even drops. Then they'd be forced to pay players less and offering less games (which also cuts costs) is a natural compensation.
For me, baseball's long season is a feature, not a bug. I love baseball and watch a ton throughout the season, but I also like the fact that I can check out for stretches at a time and drop back in without feeling like I've fallen behind or missed a ton, or that I "have to" tune in for every game. Some games I watch closely and others become background entertainment while I do other stuff. It's like throwing on The Office, or Friends, or Seinfeld for the umpteenth time.
The idea that the NBA should *reduce* games is not at all backed up by the data. If anything, the NBA is incentivized to add *more* games based on how they've seen reactions to revenues from changing 1st rounds from best of 5 to 7, creating the play-in, adding in the semifinals of the IST, etc.
These Arnovidiots that clamor for fewer games never bring actual data to the table to support their argument. It's because the data point in the opposite direction.
(I enjoy Kevin Arnovitz's writing, but this idea is just fucking stupid)
Well, the data shows 82 games isn't working, ratings continue to decline. So, would you suggest the NBA have even more regular season games or an even more expanded playoff? If not, then what's your idea to reverse the trend of declining viewership?
The only reason why anyone within the NBA would care about ratings is how it affects revenues. Declining viewership isn't a problem by itself, but it is a problem if it negatively affects how much revenue the NBA can generate (it might! we have a new TV deal that will determine that).
But as far as what *actual data* say, reducing games isn't at all likely to increase total revenues for the NBA.
I wouldn't consider the two lockout seasons to be good data. Of course it is data and should be examined when determining whether less games would work. Though it's a leap to say because the two lockout seasons led to less revenue, the Aronovitz idea "is just fucking stupid." Especially since everyone knows there is less viewership across all sports during a lockout season.
For example, "An average of 16 million viewers watched the San Antonio Spurs defeat the New York Knicks in the 1999 NBA Finals, down 40 percent from the previous season. It was the lowest-rated Finals since 1981."
He provided examples of sports (CBB, NFL) that play less games but have similar or more tv revenue.
"In other words, the NCAA sells the 11 broadcast dates of March Madness for just a smidgen less per year than the NBA earns for the rights to eight months of NBA basketball. It's important to note that March Madness has a lot of things going for it. Seemingly every office in America hosts a bracket pool, and the sudden-death nature of the tournament produces a level of drama that's tough to replicate in any sport." Of course, cross-sport comparisons aren't apples to apples. But it is "data".
And it's not like there's data that shows 82 games is the PERFECT number. 82 games came about in an arbitrary way. It's not stupid to have an idea that maybe something other than 82 would be the sweet spot for the NBA regular season.
That's not data that's relevant to the NBA and certainly wouldn't pass muster if someone went to their boss with the idea of increasing/decreasing the price of one of their products. "Hi, I'd like to reduce suggested retail price of the iPhone to $300. Look, a gallon of milk costs $3 and it sells way more plus economics 101 says you sell more when you reduce the price"
I'm not even exaggerating much with that quip, Arnovitz says basically that message but in the opposite direction. But, again, there's nothing in the piece that shows relevant NBA data. Does he provide ratings for fewer games? Is he making links between injuries and games played? Does he show ticket sales for certain games? Are there other sports that increase/decrease their number of games that can support the argument? No, it's basically a qualitative argument of "fewer games = higher demand!" without regard for empirics. No one disagrees that fewer games would in turn cause higher per game revenues, but the entire question is if total revenue changes and that's an empirical question.
We do agree that 82 is an arbitrary number. But everything I've seen point towards this amount being too low. But I guess Adam Silver and the rest of the NBA are just a bunch of dummies for having added on almost ten games to their annual inventory over the past three years? _Revenue must have gone down for them_
Not just sports... all of TV has the same problem. People aren't watching less TV, there's just more of it and it's become more difficult to cut through the noise to garner any sort of real returns. In fact, streaming is already beginning to cut back on the shows they produce. You're right, the sports leagues will have to begin doing the same. The NFL was just lucky enough that their schedule was already ready-made for this shift.
I think you can honestly take it beyond games where the NBA is concerned. There's been a push to make the NBA a 12-month a year sport that is constantly talked about and consumed. If you partake in NBA Twitter you can log on on random Thursday night in December and get the gist of what's going on in the league. This kind of omnipresence the NBA has sought over the last decade has watered down it's product. It's not just too many games - it's too much everything.
At least football has a clear delineation. There's a definable offseason where not much goes on. It helps. People began to miss football. They crave it again. No one ever craves the NBA because it never stops. Drama, Trades, Free Agency, Games. There's an insatiable flow of content with a satiable apatite for basketball. Less should be more for the NBA.
This article feels like a mild surrender from Ethan. Ethan‘s “secret sauce“ is having the smarts and balls to clearly identify the missteps the NBA has made, which has reduced its popularity. People who want to scream that Ethan is wrong and it’s just “cord cutting“ or “too long of season.”
While some of that is true, it doesn’t explain the ridiculous moves Adam Silver has made to hurt his product.
So, what is this article? It seems to negate many of Ethan’s (correct) diagnosis of a fundamentally broken league.
What’s next? Claiming that because there are far less fathers in the home then yesteryear, fewer kids are being raised to enjoy sports--therefore THAT’S why the NBA ratings are bad?
Sure that’s a real thing too , but Ethan should keep the heat on the real fumbles at silver actually has control over.
Yep, it suggests that Adam Silver is pursuing the right strategy and Ethan's criticisms are misplaced.
It drives me nuts that, as Ethan observes, Silver seems more concerned about being liked by the players than enforcing standards important to the fans. But if none of those decisions are the issue, why should Silver sacrifice his personal popularity or invite labor strife - for no reason?
Hear me out. Do it the other way around. You have an 82-game schedule. Its all there. Why do we need playoffs? There are enough big games in the regular season to mean something? Why do we need 82 regular season games, THEN a 4-round playoff. (Not to be this guy, but I am going to be this guy) The European football season, has no playoffs, the standings are the standings. There is a single table. And if you win? You WIN! That's IT! Now? There are other competitive elements like Top 4 or Bottom 3 relegation that make a smidge more compelling. But I think the schedule could have all the juice it needs if its just the regular season.
That Lakers Celtics game in middle of the season means 10-times more if it's going to determine the title. The rivalry game between the 76's and the Knicks means that much more if it's the only game.
Maybe! MAYBE you bring back the conferences (which I think people like) and have a single 3 game series for the title. Go BACK to what made people love the games. Get to their essence. Rather than radical change.... roll back thinking... what was the purpose of the games... the regular season. The FREIGHT of the games... filling an arena, night after night. The FREIGHT of the games... scheduling local sports channels... night after night.
While you are at it? Get rid of the salary cap. Get rid of the salary floor. Let the LEAGUE FLOAT without the central authority. Let the courts be slightly different. "Oh the garden's has a slightly longer 3." Oh the width of the 76's court is wider. This is done in European football. The pitches have parameters but they can be different sizes (within reason)
Why not? That way you don't lose the freight, you lose a few play off games.... so what? What you GAIN is a whole season of meaning.
An interesting stakeholder that isn't represented in the "gate receipts go down, but TV money goes up" argument/equation for shortening the season are all of the game-day reliant businesses. Maybe public money for stadiums is a relatively anachronistic idea in 2023 and beyond, but typically part of the selling point is "41 home dates driving economic activity for the area" etc.
I would imagine reducing the number of home games by nearly half would greatly impact revenue for businesses in the area. It doesn't factor into BRI and likely doesn't concern the players at all, but I would imagine the league would need to make a strong economic argument to "community partners" to get it off the ground.
Maybe all of the above is ancillary, but it got me thinking about the other businesses impacted by the season length and how they might create additional resistance to the idea. I imagine some of the minority owners are invested in those businesses, so it would create additional incentive outside of just gate receipts to avoid shortening the season for them.
An NBA season with games only twice a week and teams actually practicing and preparing for specific opponents and caring about every game would be so awesome.
Love the idea of 44 games. NBA and whoever else runs international tournaments (FIBA?) can then expand and make these games relevant, similar to soccer with the World Cup and Euros. With the basketball becoming so international, I believe this is a massive opportunity. Fun fact, no American has won the MVP since the ‘17-‘18 season.
For the mechanics of the NBA game itself, adopt the Elam ending and allow players to inbounds the ball on their own, similar to soccer, to keep the pace flowing. Why do we wait for refs to waltz over every time? Anything close, ref blows the whistle deals with it. It’s pretty obvious, 60%-70% of the time, whose possession it is.
The flow of a FIBA game is like butter, the NBA is a total rock fight from a viewers perspective. I understand there are economic factors at play but is less ad money short term, worth gaining market share back in the long term, from TikTok, YouTube and Netflix? The NBA must disrupt their own business model or the market will do it for them.
I always liked the Elam ending, but they got rid of it for the all-star game I think
Yeah the long season is archaic. Here's what I think happened.
In 1900, they said - playing baseball is fun and people don't have anything else to do. So let's just play every day when the weather is nice. People watched, rooted for the home team and went home. Probably people weren't as concerned with championships, legacies, etc. Its was just simple, daily entertainment. And it made financial sense too.
Hockey and basketball built on that. Played as often as they reasonably could. Tried to give as many fans the opportunity to see a sport in person. And again, it was more about rooting for the home team, being entertained etc.
For whatever reasons, perspectives have changed and we now massively value championships over day to day games. So the model makes no sense in the current environment. With the modern incentives, it literally makes zero sense for NBA teams to go as hard as they can for 82 games. There is no real solution.
From a viewing perspective the only solution is to see the games as entertainment rather than maximum competition. This is how I view the NBA. I like watching these guys play basketball. There are nuances and specific aspects of players that I ilke. But I'm not expecting 1 million percent competitiveness during the regular season because it makes no sense for teams and players to behave that way.
I think you can do it with 82 games, but you need to cut the postseason to only be the best regular season teams from the conferences, or restructure to two divisions per conference and only have the four division winners make the postseason. Regular season will matter then.
This is something I’ve been preaching. Long season plus expanded playoffs is nonsense. Why care? 16 teams make it. They don’t even need a winning record. You can have one or the other. This is why I dislike the baseball expanded playoffs.
I’ve been preaching this for years. The nba regular season is a formality. One I have next to no interest in following day to day. I do not care. I’ve literally tried to care. I’ve said “this is the year I’m going to watch more games” but the thing is. They don’t matter. It’s just a bunch of men stat padding.
If you’re going to have a long season make the playoffs really matter. The second problem with the nba is what? Half the teams. Actually more than half the teams make the playoffs. 16!!! Teams will play through the regular season and make the playoffs. And you can easily pencil in what? 10-12 of them day one? What am I watching? Why am I watching?
If you’re going to have a long season you can’t have half the teams make the playoffs. It dilutes the product. Can you imagine the last month of the nba season if only 8 teams total made the playoffs? There would be so much jockeying for position it would be must watch. That last week of games would be full of heart break and triumph. But instead of giving us any of that during the season they backloaded all of that fun stuff into the playoffs. And the nba playoffs are great. It makes me wonder why even have the season? (I know why. Ticket sales and ads). But the baby is being thrown out with the bath water.
Even the NFL going to 17 games and adding a playoff team I think was a long term mistake. Teams with sub .500 records should automatically be eliminated from playoff contention in any sport. 47 teams in the nba have made the playoffs with a losing record. Again. What is even the point of the regular season in the nba? It’s essentially scrimmage. It’s just pre-postseason.
It’s practice. We are talking about practice.
I’m totally on your side, I think fewer and more meaningful games makes for a better product, and a restrictive playoff structure is good to make sure the regular season is meaningful. Unfortunately, money is the driving factor for these decisions. I hated the introduction of the 7 seed to the NFL playoffs and still do, but the money speaks for itself, the revenue poured in, and we’re not going back. No one is contracting the schedule unless forced to.
When everything becomes a spreadsheet things stop being fun.
Amen
Yeah the NFL is pretty bullet proof, but the extra playoff team is watering things down, especially in the NFC right now.
I love the long baseball regular season. Going to a game IRL is a whole different animal from watching on TV. The weather is usually nice, and each stadium has its own unique vibe and architecture. 81 home games means you have so many opportunities to catch a game.
Long NBA and NHL regular seasons are more problematic since each league's playoffs go on forever and its obvious players are saving energy for them.
I think baseball is the sport best placed to weather the RSN collapse because it makes more money on attendance than the other sports do. Attending an MLB game and observing how many people are there for a nice day out and don't actually know much about the team compared to any other sport is eye-opening.
Also, I recently completed my quest of seeing a game at every current MLB ballpark. Can't imagine doing that with NBA/NHL arenas; what's the point? They all look the same.
I'm a huge baseball fan, but I go to plenty of games with friends who don't care about baseball at all and just for the atmosphere. I can't think of any other major sport where this is the case
How about networking issues? I feel like that doesn’t get talked about enough.
Irvine Welsh once wrote that soccer was the international language for men - that men with nothing at all in common could still have real connection and interaction with each other by discussing soccer. In the States it was always baseball/football when I was growing up. I think that a big part of the reason people kept up with these sports is the pleasure in participating in these discussions.
As viewership has dropped I’ve noticed that this isn’t true anymore for baseball. People my age will still bring it up, but even among my aged crowd it’s no longer assured that everyone will be able to participate, and so it’s fading. I expect the fewer mileage people get out of baseball knowledge in real life the less people will tune in.
I can’t imagine what it’s like for the under 20 folks. Do they talk about baseball at all? I feel like fantasy sports is a big reason it’s still holding on.
If I’m right, even if MLB makes the changes you propose, how do you rebuild this? It’s like trying to stir cream out of the coffee. Once the social aspect of sports is degraded I don’t think it’s quick to rebuild.
This reminds me of a Chuck Klosterman quote from a BS Report from like 2007 that I still think about all the time.
"When I'm going somewhere with my wife, the ONLY thing I'm thinking is 'I hope someone there likes sports.'". He went on to say it doesn't matter the sport, the team, whatever - you can talk to that guy. 10 years later I got married and that is what I think about every time.
I'm a huge NBA / Hawks fan (I know!) and have been for 40 years. I've been of the opinion the last few seasons that the league would benefit from making Christmas Day the big season kick-off.
No one really pays attention when the NBA starts (except degenerates like myself) while college and pro football are in full swing, and the NBA already kind of owns Christmas Day (as well as MLK Day). I think it would be best for everyone.
> the NBA already kind of owns Christmas Day
Not anymore, the NFL decided to take over. Even last year's garbage playoff-eliminated games way outrated the NBA.
I've been saying for years Christmas should be NBA opening day. I've heard the NBA wouldn't do it because the season would bleed into the summer which generally is not a good time for tv ratings. But with a shorter schedule, that wouldn't be a problem.
get out of here, I'm supposed to be the only hawks fan around these parts
I wonder if the other one will show up. Would be crazy if all 3 Hawks fans are HoS subscribers.
(I’m so sorry!)
What are we gonna do bros. To early to blow it up? Losing JJ took a lot of early momentum. He was looking like comeback player of the year, justifying my JJ Stanning for the last two or three season
Big Tone is just too damn involved in the personnel moves that I can't see them blowing it up and admitting that his son has no clue how to build a team. So I'm expecting Siakam at some point.
I don't disagree with this, but what does reducing the schedule in a meaningful and permanent way look like? Let's take that ESPN article from 2011 suggesting 44 games. Friend of mine works at the NBA says that although they command much less advertising revenue per game than the NFL, the fact that they play so many games means it almost makes up for the difference. So by cutting your season in half to 44 games, isn't that just asking to cut revenue in half? The owners will hate to pay players the same for half the work, or alternatively the players just make half of what they used to make, which the players will hate. Now of course, fewer more meaningful games might lead to increased revenue since they are more scarce and then we haven't lost much money. But if it's true that part of the reason for the slide is that sports in general, and not merely inventory sports, though they are getting the worst of it, are competing with too many other entertainment options, as some evidence tends to show, then scarcity won't fully solve the problem. So then maybe reducing the games is just leaving money on the table
Sports media people love this idea because they like the idea of going to fewer games where players try harder. Ignoring that half the revenues are ticket sales, not TV rights. So you are cutting a big source of revenue to chase hopefully more per game from the other source. It just doesn't make sense.
Well, no doubt you could raise ticket prices, but could you do it enough to compensate sufficiently? I have no idea, I am just wondering how you sell this risk/reward to the league/teams/players
It probably doesn't happen until their forced to. If the HOS predictions are correct and viewership continues to decline, my guess is we will see a time when league revenue stagnates or even drops. Then they'd be forced to pay players less and offering less games (which also cuts costs) is a natural compensation.
salaries would also have to be cut or grandfathered in or something
For me, baseball's long season is a feature, not a bug. I love baseball and watch a ton throughout the season, but I also like the fact that I can check out for stretches at a time and drop back in without feeling like I've fallen behind or missed a ton, or that I "have to" tune in for every game. Some games I watch closely and others become background entertainment while I do other stuff. It's like throwing on The Office, or Friends, or Seinfeld for the umpteenth time.
The idea that the NBA should *reduce* games is not at all backed up by the data. If anything, the NBA is incentivized to add *more* games based on how they've seen reactions to revenues from changing 1st rounds from best of 5 to 7, creating the play-in, adding in the semifinals of the IST, etc.
These Arnovidiots that clamor for fewer games never bring actual data to the table to support their argument. It's because the data point in the opposite direction.
(I enjoy Kevin Arnovitz's writing, but this idea is just fucking stupid)
Well, the data shows 82 games isn't working, ratings continue to decline. So, would you suggest the NBA have even more regular season games or an even more expanded playoff? If not, then what's your idea to reverse the trend of declining viewership?
The only reason why anyone within the NBA would care about ratings is how it affects revenues. Declining viewership isn't a problem by itself, but it is a problem if it negatively affects how much revenue the NBA can generate (it might! we have a new TV deal that will determine that).
But as far as what *actual data* say, reducing games isn't at all likely to increase total revenues for the NBA.
https://www.peachtreehoops.com/2017/4/10/15230168/using-data-to-evaluate-the-number-of-nba-regular-season-games
I wouldn't consider the two lockout seasons to be good data. Of course it is data and should be examined when determining whether less games would work. Though it's a leap to say because the two lockout seasons led to less revenue, the Aronovitz idea "is just fucking stupid." Especially since everyone knows there is less viewership across all sports during a lockout season.
For example, "An average of 16 million viewers watched the San Antonio Spurs defeat the New York Knicks in the 1999 NBA Finals, down 40 percent from the previous season. It was the lowest-rated Finals since 1981."
https://www.theringer.com/nba/2019/2/19/18228706/lockout-1999-season-san-antonio-spurs-new-york-knicks
and what data have the Arnovitzes provided?
He provided examples of sports (CBB, NFL) that play less games but have similar or more tv revenue.
"In other words, the NCAA sells the 11 broadcast dates of March Madness for just a smidgen less per year than the NBA earns for the rights to eight months of NBA basketball. It's important to note that March Madness has a lot of things going for it. Seemingly every office in America hosts a bracket pool, and the sudden-death nature of the tournament produces a level of drama that's tough to replicate in any sport." Of course, cross-sport comparisons aren't apples to apples. But it is "data".
And it's not like there's data that shows 82 games is the PERFECT number. 82 games came about in an arbitrary way. It's not stupid to have an idea that maybe something other than 82 would be the sweet spot for the NBA regular season.
That's not data that's relevant to the NBA and certainly wouldn't pass muster if someone went to their boss with the idea of increasing/decreasing the price of one of their products. "Hi, I'd like to reduce suggested retail price of the iPhone to $300. Look, a gallon of milk costs $3 and it sells way more plus economics 101 says you sell more when you reduce the price"
I'm not even exaggerating much with that quip, Arnovitz says basically that message but in the opposite direction. But, again, there's nothing in the piece that shows relevant NBA data. Does he provide ratings for fewer games? Is he making links between injuries and games played? Does he show ticket sales for certain games? Are there other sports that increase/decrease their number of games that can support the argument? No, it's basically a qualitative argument of "fewer games = higher demand!" without regard for empirics. No one disagrees that fewer games would in turn cause higher per game revenues, but the entire question is if total revenue changes and that's an empirical question.
We do agree that 82 is an arbitrary number. But everything I've seen point towards this amount being too low. But I guess Adam Silver and the rest of the NBA are just a bunch of dummies for having added on almost ten games to their annual inventory over the past three years? _Revenue must have gone down for them_
Not just sports... all of TV has the same problem. People aren't watching less TV, there's just more of it and it's become more difficult to cut through the noise to garner any sort of real returns. In fact, streaming is already beginning to cut back on the shows they produce. You're right, the sports leagues will have to begin doing the same. The NFL was just lucky enough that their schedule was already ready-made for this shift.
I think you can honestly take it beyond games where the NBA is concerned. There's been a push to make the NBA a 12-month a year sport that is constantly talked about and consumed. If you partake in NBA Twitter you can log on on random Thursday night in December and get the gist of what's going on in the league. This kind of omnipresence the NBA has sought over the last decade has watered down it's product. It's not just too many games - it's too much everything.
At least football has a clear delineation. There's a definable offseason where not much goes on. It helps. People began to miss football. They crave it again. No one ever craves the NBA because it never stops. Drama, Trades, Free Agency, Games. There's an insatiable flow of content with a satiable apatite for basketball. Less should be more for the NBA.
The collapse of the RSN model that requires copious inventory to build out 24/7/365 linear schedules might help leagues re-imagine scheduling.
This article feels like a mild surrender from Ethan. Ethan‘s “secret sauce“ is having the smarts and balls to clearly identify the missteps the NBA has made, which has reduced its popularity. People who want to scream that Ethan is wrong and it’s just “cord cutting“ or “too long of season.”
While some of that is true, it doesn’t explain the ridiculous moves Adam Silver has made to hurt his product.
So, what is this article? It seems to negate many of Ethan’s (correct) diagnosis of a fundamentally broken league.
What’s next? Claiming that because there are far less fathers in the home then yesteryear, fewer kids are being raised to enjoy sports--therefore THAT’S why the NBA ratings are bad?
Sure that’s a real thing too , but Ethan should keep the heat on the real fumbles at silver actually has control over.
Yep, it suggests that Adam Silver is pursuing the right strategy and Ethan's criticisms are misplaced.
It drives me nuts that, as Ethan observes, Silver seems more concerned about being liked by the players than enforcing standards important to the fans. But if none of those decisions are the issue, why should Silver sacrifice his personal popularity or invite labor strife - for no reason?
Hear me out. Do it the other way around. You have an 82-game schedule. Its all there. Why do we need playoffs? There are enough big games in the regular season to mean something? Why do we need 82 regular season games, THEN a 4-round playoff. (Not to be this guy, but I am going to be this guy) The European football season, has no playoffs, the standings are the standings. There is a single table. And if you win? You WIN! That's IT! Now? There are other competitive elements like Top 4 or Bottom 3 relegation that make a smidge more compelling. But I think the schedule could have all the juice it needs if its just the regular season.
That Lakers Celtics game in middle of the season means 10-times more if it's going to determine the title. The rivalry game between the 76's and the Knicks means that much more if it's the only game.
Maybe! MAYBE you bring back the conferences (which I think people like) and have a single 3 game series for the title. Go BACK to what made people love the games. Get to their essence. Rather than radical change.... roll back thinking... what was the purpose of the games... the regular season. The FREIGHT of the games... filling an arena, night after night. The FREIGHT of the games... scheduling local sports channels... night after night.
While you are at it? Get rid of the salary cap. Get rid of the salary floor. Let the LEAGUE FLOAT without the central authority. Let the courts be slightly different. "Oh the garden's has a slightly longer 3." Oh the width of the 76's court is wider. This is done in European football. The pitches have parameters but they can be different sizes (within reason)
Why not? That way you don't lose the freight, you lose a few play off games.... so what? What you GAIN is a whole season of meaning.
An interesting stakeholder that isn't represented in the "gate receipts go down, but TV money goes up" argument/equation for shortening the season are all of the game-day reliant businesses. Maybe public money for stadiums is a relatively anachronistic idea in 2023 and beyond, but typically part of the selling point is "41 home dates driving economic activity for the area" etc.
I would imagine reducing the number of home games by nearly half would greatly impact revenue for businesses in the area. It doesn't factor into BRI and likely doesn't concern the players at all, but I would imagine the league would need to make a strong economic argument to "community partners" to get it off the ground.
Maybe all of the above is ancillary, but it got me thinking about the other businesses impacted by the season length and how they might create additional resistance to the idea. I imagine some of the minority owners are invested in those businesses, so it would create additional incentive outside of just gate receipts to avoid shortening the season for them.