Everybody points to the rules of the game (specifically the 3 point shot) as the main reason for the NBA's viewership decline. But the WNBA experienced the greatest increase in interest due to a player who is a long distance bomber in Caitlin Clark.
The main difference between the current NBA and the NBA in the 80s and 90s is the lack of compelling stars that are universally appealing. Clark has it, Jordan had it, even Shaq and Kobe had it in the post Jordan era. I think LeBron for all his greatness as a player is just not that guy.
I think because of Nike's immense power both in the NBA and with the media narratives, LeBron was forcefed as the biggest star in the game to the public even though he was losing over and over again to Steph Curry who is with Under Armour. Curry did and still does have that mass appeal but his star was dimmed by Nike and LeBron.
I think if Curry was treated as more of an equal to LeBron (like how Bird and Magic were promoted) that would have helped Curry, the league, and even LeBron. But Lebron's whole public persona and narrative just seems disingenuous and manufactured, which has hurt both himself and the league. It's only been the last couple years that LeBron has embraced Curry as his equal but it's just too late now.
They didn’t market them together because Steph was drafted 6 years after LeBron & no one was sure how this skinny kid from Davidson was going to play out.
Carmelo & Wade (03 draft) & Howard (04) were better suited for the Bird/Magic treatment
Carmelo, wade, and Howard were never in the same league as LeBron in terms. Curry was.. it doesn't matter they weren't drafted in the same year. They were going head to head in the finals 4 years in a row. But Nike tried to promote lebron as the modern day Jordan singular face of the league when that notion is ridiculous if he went 1-3 head to head in the finals against Curry.
After Giannis won his first title, there were stories of how Nike had not properly marketed him, as they didn't want him to show up LeBron. I think I got that info more from Bill Simmons podcast than anyone.
I kind of believe that too. As I always found Giannis to be incredibly compelling. Maybe him being foreign born and being in a small market were both factors in how his rise seemed to hit a certain ceiling.
But, LeBron was in Cleveland when his rocket took off, the move to Miami just made Miami that much bigger. When you think NBA you think LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, first. Shaq is remembered as a Laker first and foremost. LeBron is remembered as LeBron first and foremost!
I buy Nike's influence on the NBA and all that.
But, one thing that is being lost here (that was actually mentioned in Ethan's book "The Victory Machine") was that after the 2016 finals, Steph Curry embraced KD coming to Golden State, and in some ways Steph was kind of relieved the spotlight wasn't exclusively on him with the Warriors.
Bill Simmons mentioned on a recent podcast how the NBA is going to start looking like the NFL now, where trades aren't as common. Look, Jimmy Buckets looks like he's gonna stay in Miami through this year. Would that have happened even 2 years ago?
This is good for the league. Having players stay on one team for the long-term. But, then again it was dumb of Minnesota to move off Towns the way they did.
I hope the league makes certain changes where if they even get rid of the corner 3, I think that would help level things off a lot. The game is so funky now, they should just swing for the fences, and make it more interesting. I think all ideas should be on the table from the wacky, every team makes their own 3 point line, to limiting how many threes can be made and or taken in a game.
And anything that pisses KD off (like the reformatting of the all star game), I think is indicative of a positive sign. That guy seems very moody and not particularly strategic in how he goes about things. So, I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how this year's all star weekend plays out.
I think the underlying fundamental problem the NBA has is the players don't act like partners with the league. The players want the money and the fame but they often don't want the responsibility that comes with it. Look at Westbrook---he wants to cash the checks but then treat the media and fans like shit. This generation of players has greatly devalued and diminished the NBA regular season, probably irreparably. And when you devalue part of something you devalue part of all of it. Including, in this case, the Finals. People will say well they signed a huge media deal. I think they got fortunate with the timing with all the different streamers vying for product etc. And who knows what the deal would have been if the league was healthier. It certainly wouldn't have been LESS.
I feel Russ is a bad example to use here. Yes, he doesn't play nice with the media but he goes hard every time he plays -- even if it hurts his team at times lol.
Someone on reddit mentioned that the value of home court advantage peaked in the late aughts and has been decreasing ever since. I think teams have perversely been rewarded for resting their stars during the regular season at the expense of standings. That was definitely true for the Cavs during LeBron's second stint.
In 2010 I spent a lot of keyboard calories arguing that the Heatles was bad for the NBA long term. But prestige media was and has only grown increasingly pro player-empowerment since that time. It was obvious then and it's obvious now that fans are going to be less invested in their teams the more they feel the loyalty only goes one way.
This piece is spot on. But one thing that won't get mentioned is the role that "RingzZz!!!1" and "Chauncey Billups should be MVP" (2004) played in LeBronism. LeBron was statistically the best player in the league by 2005. But it wasn't really until 2009 that you could win an argument that he was in fact the best. The Cavs were lovable, but winning with defense, rebounding, and LeBron as the only offensive star had everyone outside Cleveland demanding that the Cavs get more help for LeBron and/or declare that without rings, LeBron couldn't be considered the best. He had done everything else to that point and wasn't getting his due. When he passed up a game winner to Donyell Marshall (the correct basketball play) he was eviscerated. He wanted rings and didn't care how he got them.
So as much as I blame him, the way media and fans never gave him his due until he had a bunch of rings is a big reason for the NBA mercenary culture.
Also, had LeBron not won in 2016 with the Cavs I think his legacy would be much different now. That was the only time he won a championship as an underdog.
On the bright side, it only took the NBA wasting years of the primes of Jokic/Giannis/Embiid/Luka by failing to adequately market them to get to this point!
Continuing to allow guys on the wrong side of 35 to be your most heavily promoted stars and then wondering why you are seeing declining ratings is a real Leopards Ate My Face moment.
Also, Jay-Z doesn't get nearly enough blame for how much influence he's had on LeBron and how bad the "I'm not a businessman; I'm a business, man" era has been for the NBA.
It's still going too. I saw Chris Mannix has a story on Jaylen Brown's off court activities and business ventures. I cannot think of a story I have less interest in and I have to assume I am not alone in that.
I find it hilarious that players think we care about that stuff. I'm pretty sure Durant had a business podcast that nobody listened to. I also think it's funny how these guys who make hundreds of millions from playing a sport think they have a special business acumen.
What more could they have done to adequately market them?
Luka is heavily marketed. Jokic doesn't want to be marketed. Embiid is injury prone. And Giannis team traded a key player to a conference rival and his team has had 2 straight years of disappointment since.
I don't think the made the decision to actively not to market any of the young team, and just decided to put all their eggs in the 35+ basket, the younger players also aren't playing their part.
Nick Wright had a good point recently about how LeBron/Steph/KD have always behaved like stars off the court -- not getting publicly embarrassed by pornstars, having mistresses leak texts asking you to get an abortion, waving guns on social media -- and that went a long way in keeping themselves and their teams consistently relevant.
Re: Wright’s comment, my mom was just talking about how LeBron’s image is so clean: good dad, good husband, doesn’t get in trouble with the law, no substance abuse. And then she says “but he’s so annoying”.
And she’s right. There’s nothing “wrong” with him, but there’s something about him that is just…irritating. Jordan was an asshole but I wouldn’t call him irritating. It’s hard to describe.
I'm too old to really use this word, but imo it's because LeBron is what the kids call "thirsty." He wants too much to be liked. He wants people to think he's a good person. He wants people to think he's smart. He "reads books" but he only does so in the locker room when people are watching. Constantly the audience is aware how much he worries about his image. He comes off as fake, as a result, and also somewhat insecure.
Jordan didn't give a damn what anyone thought of him. He just wanted to win. He might not have been someone you wanted to have as your best friend, but that kind of attitude commands respect.
This is exactly right. Another way to think of it is that MJ was the coolest mf'er around, and LeBron just isn't cool, for a myriad of reasons. And there's not much you can do about that. Some people just have it and others don't.
The bigger problem is that most athletes don't seem very cool these days. Too many of them seem like petty, insecure types who dramatically whine at refs non-stop and care far too much about their 'image,' absolutely none of which is cool.
Jordan definitely cared what people thought of him for a very long time in his career. Jordan was pissed when the Jordan Rules book came out and hurt his reputation as a good guy. A lot of people where still genuinely shocked when he came off like a petty vindictive prick in his Hall of Fame induction speech in 2009. Woj crushed him lol https://sports.yahoo.com/news/jordans-night-remember-turns-petty-075600787--nba.html
Lean on your broadcast partners like ESPN to talk about them more on the Jump/NBA Today and First Take?
Call me crazy but your best players and teams should be your most discussed team's, whether they want to make a documentary about themself or sit for interviews or not.
Your broadcast partners ultimately have to televise the playoffs games based of the teams that advance. You can't pretend the Lakers and Warriors are the top contenders forever. When the neglected teams and players end up playing in the playoffs and the ratings aren't what you hoped, you reap the consequences of your own actions.
I do think the whole sport/sports media, and sports in general has really succumbed to some really elementary mistakes along these lines.
Like ESPN would sit and look at ratings for discussion and be like "ok if we talk about Lebron drama part XVII today we will get 400k viewers, but if we talk about the Timberwolves winning streak we will only get 330k viewers".
And so they again and again and again make that decision, and also make it between sports and focus on fewer and fewer of them. But what happens is very quickly you start losing people.
So in year 1 you have say 5 million viewers, and with a more diverse topic set 330k tune in each day.
Then in year 2 some executive says "hey if we mostly talk Lakers/Yankees/Rangers/Cowboys we will get 400k to tune in." Except by year 3 you aren't drawing in 400k of 5 million, but 350k of 2 million. Still better than if you had taken a wider based approach, but you are training TONS of people that you are not the place to go anymore. And then maybe the Lakers have a down year and suddenly you are at 200k of 1.5 million or whatever.
I feel like there is a lot of extremely short term decision making which IMO barely makes sense for the broadcasters, and definitely doesn't make sense for the leagues.
The superstar team up is frequently falsely attributed to James.
We have to understand the context: LeBron had a clear path to get back to the Finals in 2007-08, but the 2007 Finals had record low ratings. So David Stern went with what worked in the 80s, the best players on LA and Boston.
Take a look at the trades for Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Pau Gasol.
I'm hard pressed how any hard working individual in any field would see that collusion (Kevin McHale was the Minnesota GM, lol), and see ANY other route than taking matters into their own hands.
--
"Ringz" talk, aka "Legacy", etc the mentality you've alluded to here is also falsely attributed to James. This is a chicken and egg issue.
Long before James arrived, in the streets, playgrounds, and barbershops, GOAT debates were had. Barkely has none. MJ has 6, Magic and Kareem have 5, Kobe vs Shaq. On and on.
LeBron did not start "ring" talk and "ring" talk did not start with him. "Ring" talk is endemic of Sports fandom.
--
Its an interesting point re: LeBronism. My counterpoint would be: sports fandom is evolving just like everything else. Say you're in Atlanta or DC, your team is never good. It makes no sense you should not be able to enjoy greatness like so many others.
So why not root for MJ, Tiger, LeBron? Why not watch an F1 race and root for Max Verstappen or a tennis match and root for Serena? The WWE understands this, see: babyfaces and heels.
Humans are programmed for survival, and misery is no way to survive. The trend of kids in Minnesota or Phoenix with a LeBron poster on their wall -- this will continue on for generations.
I agree with you his likeability took a hit these past few years, like so many celebrities post-Trump, politics seemed to take up far too much of their public image.
Many forget 2015 was also a dark time for LeBron. Steph was the preeminent superstar, many said LeBron was on the way out. Then 2016, and 2018 happened and jettisoned him to the "Beygency" / "Swifties" level it is now.
Moments in those years changed perception. This will happen again, for Luka, Ant, Ja -- or LeBron or Steph will have another.
Marketing and game coverage can improve. Game quality can improve. But its the on-court moments that put players into the next level. We're simply in a 2+ year drought.
You might be wrong about Lebron fading out, if not Lebronism. He just today he could play at this level another 5-7 years. Which brings me to the question no one is comfortable asking: do we really believe in miracles? Because someone should let the Pope know. We are witnessing a miracle! A Lance Armstrong/Brady Anderson level miracle. And there are no miracles. So idk, I guess everyone is just fine with Lebron disappearing for long stretches to "recharge his batteries" and everyone is doing "don't ask don't tell". Except for Bill Simmons, who's joked about it several times. I mean I guess it's whatever. Nobody cares anymore. But it seems a little weird how everyone has zero questions. It was bad enough with Brady, but this somehow feels worse.
I watched part of the Knicks v Spurs Game in the 3rd quarter, but was bored by it. I watched the end of Lakers v Warriors and quite enjoyed it. Maybe it was the time of day. But, no - there's something about Bron and Curry going to battle again.
I'm a New Yorker and a Knicks fan, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any player on that team that started with that team. The last Knicks team I really liked was actually the 2010-2011 "Pre-Melo" Knicks that had Stoudemire as it's center-piece.
If KD stayed with the Warriors how many titles would they have won? Would that have been better for him? Would it have been better for Steph?
As a New Yorker, I will again say that while it would have been nice if KD and Kyrie came to the Knicks, I wish they stayed in Brooklyn once they got there. You need franchise guys to build up a fan base. The Brooklyn Nets have been in BK for over a decade, but still have not built up a fan base that will create a fan-base for multiple generations.
The Knicks look good, but I don't trust Dolan. And the pressure from across the river would have required the Knicks to always watch their back with the Nets. For now...not so much.
Your post is making me route for a "Bucks v. Nuggets" Finals 2025. Let Giannis or Jokic break through as a multi-time champion and NBA Finals MVP. I believe that will be great for the league!
Ethan, what do you make of ESPN’s decision to push the Jimmy “trade demand” (or whatever they’re calling it) before the Christmas slate tipped off? They clearly think they need the transaction buzz to fuel game interest.
I agree with your thesis here - players sticking around is good for fan interest. Does ESPN (and their shiny new Shams toy) agree?
I was watching a bowl game on ESPN and the number one lead story on the bottom line ticker was "Pat Riley: Not trading Jimmy Butler." It's crazy how much airtime on the entire ESPN family revolves around presenting the NBA as reality TV for dudes.
That works the other way too... Agents and GMs leak stuff before Christmas because they know it will get attention and it is incentivized by the league calendar (you get to set expectations in front of trade deadline /extension deadline and solicit off-season interest/offers to gauge market). Was it James Harden/Morey who had the bizarre Christmas leak a few years back about an extension or potential trade?
What does ES think of the following: If LeBronism can affect such luminaries as Anthony Davis (sorry, "AD"), how much could it have affected the rest of the market, especially (men's) college basketball? When was the last time there was a true (men's) college basketball star? Zion? Six(!) years ago? NIL and the transfer portal are definitely at least partially to blame for depriving us of stable, school-loyal stars, but could NIL and (especially) the transfer portal *themselves* be downstream of LeBronism?
LBJ and KD XMas day comments on low ratings/NFL challenge implicitly acknowledges some player responsibility. Big step towards Stern-ian "restoration of order"
HoS is great at coming up with interesting take after interesting take on the NBA's popularity. If I had just one wish on something to add, it would be some sort of data to back the argment up.
Or maybe that's just my own idiosyncrasies talking.
AAU is an amateur basketball circuit for secondary school aged players that has a ton of tournaments and club teams. The teams are self-formed so you can hop around, they aren't really tied to a school or region. The elite prospects often join a team sponsored by a show company and go to travel tournaments all over the country with a lot of scouts at them. But the games don't really matter all that much. Some people who are really into following prospects will watch highlights on social media. It's sort of become a Boogeyman for what's wrong with player development in American basketball or the culture surrounding NBA players but arguably isn't as bad as people say it is.
"A nice story" is probably underselling the 2016 playoffs and bringing the 1st title to Cleveland in any sport since 90% their fans have been alive
100%. Game 7 is still the best basketball game I’ve every watched live on TV.
Everybody points to the rules of the game (specifically the 3 point shot) as the main reason for the NBA's viewership decline. But the WNBA experienced the greatest increase in interest due to a player who is a long distance bomber in Caitlin Clark.
The main difference between the current NBA and the NBA in the 80s and 90s is the lack of compelling stars that are universally appealing. Clark has it, Jordan had it, even Shaq and Kobe had it in the post Jordan era. I think LeBron for all his greatness as a player is just not that guy.
I think because of Nike's immense power both in the NBA and with the media narratives, LeBron was forcefed as the biggest star in the game to the public even though he was losing over and over again to Steph Curry who is with Under Armour. Curry did and still does have that mass appeal but his star was dimmed by Nike and LeBron.
I think if Curry was treated as more of an equal to LeBron (like how Bird and Magic were promoted) that would have helped Curry, the league, and even LeBron. But Lebron's whole public persona and narrative just seems disingenuous and manufactured, which has hurt both himself and the league. It's only been the last couple years that LeBron has embraced Curry as his equal but it's just too late now.
They didn’t market them together because Steph was drafted 6 years after LeBron & no one was sure how this skinny kid from Davidson was going to play out.
Carmelo & Wade (03 draft) & Howard (04) were better suited for the Bird/Magic treatment
Carmelo, wade, and Howard were never in the same league as LeBron in terms. Curry was.. it doesn't matter they weren't drafted in the same year. They were going head to head in the finals 4 years in a row. But Nike tried to promote lebron as the modern day Jordan singular face of the league when that notion is ridiculous if he went 1-3 head to head in the finals against Curry.
right, but the initial comment was about Bird/Magic who both came into the league the same year and competed against each other in college
everyone likes seeing great shooters shoot. I think where fans lose interest is the whole team shooting them
After Giannis won his first title, there were stories of how Nike had not properly marketed him, as they didn't want him to show up LeBron. I think I got that info more from Bill Simmons podcast than anyone.
I kind of believe that too. As I always found Giannis to be incredibly compelling. Maybe him being foreign born and being in a small market were both factors in how his rise seemed to hit a certain ceiling.
But, LeBron was in Cleveland when his rocket took off, the move to Miami just made Miami that much bigger. When you think NBA you think LA, NY, Boston, Chicago, first. Shaq is remembered as a Laker first and foremost. LeBron is remembered as LeBron first and foremost!
I buy Nike's influence on the NBA and all that.
But, one thing that is being lost here (that was actually mentioned in Ethan's book "The Victory Machine") was that after the 2016 finals, Steph Curry embraced KD coming to Golden State, and in some ways Steph was kind of relieved the spotlight wasn't exclusively on him with the Warriors.
Bill Simmons mentioned on a recent podcast how the NBA is going to start looking like the NFL now, where trades aren't as common. Look, Jimmy Buckets looks like he's gonna stay in Miami through this year. Would that have happened even 2 years ago?
This is good for the league. Having players stay on one team for the long-term. But, then again it was dumb of Minnesota to move off Towns the way they did.
I hope the league makes certain changes where if they even get rid of the corner 3, I think that would help level things off a lot. The game is so funky now, they should just swing for the fences, and make it more interesting. I think all ideas should be on the table from the wacky, every team makes their own 3 point line, to limiting how many threes can be made and or taken in a game.
And anything that pisses KD off (like the reformatting of the all star game), I think is indicative of a positive sign. That guy seems very moody and not particularly strategic in how he goes about things. So, I'm kind of looking forward to seeing how this year's all star weekend plays out.
I think the underlying fundamental problem the NBA has is the players don't act like partners with the league. The players want the money and the fame but they often don't want the responsibility that comes with it. Look at Westbrook---he wants to cash the checks but then treat the media and fans like shit. This generation of players has greatly devalued and diminished the NBA regular season, probably irreparably. And when you devalue part of something you devalue part of all of it. Including, in this case, the Finals. People will say well they signed a huge media deal. I think they got fortunate with the timing with all the different streamers vying for product etc. And who knows what the deal would have been if the league was healthier. It certainly wouldn't have been LESS.
I feel Russ is a bad example to use here. Yes, he doesn't play nice with the media but he goes hard every time he plays -- even if it hurts his team at times lol.
And how does he treat fans like shit?
trying to have paying customers removed from the arena for innocuous heckling for one
I would have to disagree that kicking <5 fans out an arena over the course of a 13/14 year career is treating fans like shit.
With that being said, I also don't think fans should be kicked out for calling him Westbrick
Edit: 17 year career
Fair enough. That was just off the top of my head
Someone on reddit mentioned that the value of home court advantage peaked in the late aughts and has been decreasing ever since. I think teams have perversely been rewarded for resting their stars during the regular season at the expense of standings. That was definitely true for the Cavs during LeBron's second stint.
In 2010 I spent a lot of keyboard calories arguing that the Heatles was bad for the NBA long term. But prestige media was and has only grown increasingly pro player-empowerment since that time. It was obvious then and it's obvious now that fans are going to be less invested in their teams the more they feel the loyalty only goes one way.
This piece is spot on. But one thing that won't get mentioned is the role that "RingzZz!!!1" and "Chauncey Billups should be MVP" (2004) played in LeBronism. LeBron was statistically the best player in the league by 2005. But it wasn't really until 2009 that you could win an argument that he was in fact the best. The Cavs were lovable, but winning with defense, rebounding, and LeBron as the only offensive star had everyone outside Cleveland demanding that the Cavs get more help for LeBron and/or declare that without rings, LeBron couldn't be considered the best. He had done everything else to that point and wasn't getting his due. When he passed up a game winner to Donyell Marshall (the correct basketball play) he was eviscerated. He wanted rings and didn't care how he got them.
So as much as I blame him, the way media and fans never gave him his due until he had a bunch of rings is a big reason for the NBA mercenary culture.
Also, had LeBron not won in 2016 with the Cavs I think his legacy would be much different now. That was the only time he won a championship as an underdog.
On the bright side, it only took the NBA wasting years of the primes of Jokic/Giannis/Embiid/Luka by failing to adequately market them to get to this point!
Continuing to allow guys on the wrong side of 35 to be your most heavily promoted stars and then wondering why you are seeing declining ratings is a real Leopards Ate My Face moment.
Also, Jay-Z doesn't get nearly enough blame for how much influence he's had on LeBron and how bad the "I'm not a businessman; I'm a business, man" era has been for the NBA.
It's still going too. I saw Chris Mannix has a story on Jaylen Brown's off court activities and business ventures. I cannot think of a story I have less interest in and I have to assume I am not alone in that.
I find it hilarious that players think we care about that stuff. I'm pretty sure Durant had a business podcast that nobody listened to. I also think it's funny how these guys who make hundreds of millions from playing a sport think they have a special business acumen.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-12-01/lebron-james-media-company-lost-almost-30-million-last-year
What more could they have done to adequately market them?
Luka is heavily marketed. Jokic doesn't want to be marketed. Embiid is injury prone. And Giannis team traded a key player to a conference rival and his team has had 2 straight years of disappointment since.
I don't think the made the decision to actively not to market any of the young team, and just decided to put all their eggs in the 35+ basket, the younger players also aren't playing their part.
Nick Wright had a good point recently about how LeBron/Steph/KD have always behaved like stars off the court -- not getting publicly embarrassed by pornstars, having mistresses leak texts asking you to get an abortion, waving guns on social media -- and that went a long way in keeping themselves and their teams consistently relevant.
Re: Wright’s comment, my mom was just talking about how LeBron’s image is so clean: good dad, good husband, doesn’t get in trouble with the law, no substance abuse. And then she says “but he’s so annoying”.
And she’s right. There’s nothing “wrong” with him, but there’s something about him that is just…irritating. Jordan was an asshole but I wouldn’t call him irritating. It’s hard to describe.
I'm too old to really use this word, but imo it's because LeBron is what the kids call "thirsty." He wants too much to be liked. He wants people to think he's a good person. He wants people to think he's smart. He "reads books" but he only does so in the locker room when people are watching. Constantly the audience is aware how much he worries about his image. He comes off as fake, as a result, and also somewhat insecure.
Jordan didn't give a damn what anyone thought of him. He just wanted to win. He might not have been someone you wanted to have as your best friend, but that kind of attitude commands respect.
This is exactly right. Another way to think of it is that MJ was the coolest mf'er around, and LeBron just isn't cool, for a myriad of reasons. And there's not much you can do about that. Some people just have it and others don't.
The bigger problem is that most athletes don't seem very cool these days. Too many of them seem like petty, insecure types who dramatically whine at refs non-stop and care far too much about their 'image,' absolutely none of which is cool.
Jordan definitely cared what people thought of him for a very long time in his career. Jordan was pissed when the Jordan Rules book came out and hurt his reputation as a good guy. A lot of people where still genuinely shocked when he came off like a petty vindictive prick in his Hall of Fame induction speech in 2009. Woj crushed him lol https://sports.yahoo.com/news/jordans-night-remember-turns-petty-075600787--nba.html
Lean on your broadcast partners like ESPN to talk about them more on the Jump/NBA Today and First Take?
Call me crazy but your best players and teams should be your most discussed team's, whether they want to make a documentary about themself or sit for interviews or not.
Your broadcast partners ultimately have to televise the playoffs games based of the teams that advance. You can't pretend the Lakers and Warriors are the top contenders forever. When the neglected teams and players end up playing in the playoffs and the ratings aren't what you hoped, you reap the consequences of your own actions.
I do think the whole sport/sports media, and sports in general has really succumbed to some really elementary mistakes along these lines.
Like ESPN would sit and look at ratings for discussion and be like "ok if we talk about Lebron drama part XVII today we will get 400k viewers, but if we talk about the Timberwolves winning streak we will only get 330k viewers".
And so they again and again and again make that decision, and also make it between sports and focus on fewer and fewer of them. But what happens is very quickly you start losing people.
So in year 1 you have say 5 million viewers, and with a more diverse topic set 330k tune in each day.
Then in year 2 some executive says "hey if we mostly talk Lakers/Yankees/Rangers/Cowboys we will get 400k to tune in." Except by year 3 you aren't drawing in 400k of 5 million, but 350k of 2 million. Still better than if you had taken a wider based approach, but you are training TONS of people that you are not the place to go anymore. And then maybe the Lakers have a down year and suddenly you are at 200k of 1.5 million or whatever.
I feel like there is a lot of extremely short term decision making which IMO barely makes sense for the broadcasters, and definitely doesn't make sense for the leagues.
The superstar team up is frequently falsely attributed to James.
We have to understand the context: LeBron had a clear path to get back to the Finals in 2007-08, but the 2007 Finals had record low ratings. So David Stern went with what worked in the 80s, the best players on LA and Boston.
Take a look at the trades for Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, and Pau Gasol.
I'm hard pressed how any hard working individual in any field would see that collusion (Kevin McHale was the Minnesota GM, lol), and see ANY other route than taking matters into their own hands.
--
"Ringz" talk, aka "Legacy", etc the mentality you've alluded to here is also falsely attributed to James. This is a chicken and egg issue.
Long before James arrived, in the streets, playgrounds, and barbershops, GOAT debates were had. Barkely has none. MJ has 6, Magic and Kareem have 5, Kobe vs Shaq. On and on.
LeBron did not start "ring" talk and "ring" talk did not start with him. "Ring" talk is endemic of Sports fandom.
--
Its an interesting point re: LeBronism. My counterpoint would be: sports fandom is evolving just like everything else. Say you're in Atlanta or DC, your team is never good. It makes no sense you should not be able to enjoy greatness like so many others.
So why not root for MJ, Tiger, LeBron? Why not watch an F1 race and root for Max Verstappen or a tennis match and root for Serena? The WWE understands this, see: babyfaces and heels.
Humans are programmed for survival, and misery is no way to survive. The trend of kids in Minnesota or Phoenix with a LeBron poster on their wall -- this will continue on for generations.
I agree with you his likeability took a hit these past few years, like so many celebrities post-Trump, politics seemed to take up far too much of their public image.
Many forget 2015 was also a dark time for LeBron. Steph was the preeminent superstar, many said LeBron was on the way out. Then 2016, and 2018 happened and jettisoned him to the "Beygency" / "Swifties" level it is now.
Moments in those years changed perception. This will happen again, for Luka, Ant, Ja -- or LeBron or Steph will have another.
Marketing and game coverage can improve. Game quality can improve. But its the on-court moments that put players into the next level. We're simply in a 2+ year drought.
Out of fashion? Or no longer possible b/c the next batch of stars just arent LBJ/Steph level and cant pull it off?
You might be wrong about Lebron fading out, if not Lebronism. He just today he could play at this level another 5-7 years. Which brings me to the question no one is comfortable asking: do we really believe in miracles? Because someone should let the Pope know. We are witnessing a miracle! A Lance Armstrong/Brady Anderson level miracle. And there are no miracles. So idk, I guess everyone is just fine with Lebron disappearing for long stretches to "recharge his batteries" and everyone is doing "don't ask don't tell". Except for Bill Simmons, who's joked about it several times. I mean I guess it's whatever. Nobody cares anymore. But it seems a little weird how everyone has zero questions. It was bad enough with Brady, but this somehow feels worse.
I watched part of the Knicks v Spurs Game in the 3rd quarter, but was bored by it. I watched the end of Lakers v Warriors and quite enjoyed it. Maybe it was the time of day. But, no - there's something about Bron and Curry going to battle again.
I'm a New Yorker and a Knicks fan, but I'm hard-pressed to think of any player on that team that started with that team. The last Knicks team I really liked was actually the 2010-2011 "Pre-Melo" Knicks that had Stoudemire as it's center-piece.
If KD stayed with the Warriors how many titles would they have won? Would that have been better for him? Would it have been better for Steph?
As a New Yorker, I will again say that while it would have been nice if KD and Kyrie came to the Knicks, I wish they stayed in Brooklyn once they got there. You need franchise guys to build up a fan base. The Brooklyn Nets have been in BK for over a decade, but still have not built up a fan base that will create a fan-base for multiple generations.
The Knicks look good, but I don't trust Dolan. And the pressure from across the river would have required the Knicks to always watch their back with the Nets. For now...not so much.
Your post is making me route for a "Bucks v. Nuggets" Finals 2025. Let Giannis or Jokic break through as a multi-time champion and NBA Finals MVP. I believe that will be great for the league!
Ethan, what do you make of ESPN’s decision to push the Jimmy “trade demand” (or whatever they’re calling it) before the Christmas slate tipped off? They clearly think they need the transaction buzz to fuel game interest.
I agree with your thesis here - players sticking around is good for fan interest. Does ESPN (and their shiny new Shams toy) agree?
I was watching a bowl game on ESPN and the number one lead story on the bottom line ticker was "Pat Riley: Not trading Jimmy Butler." It's crazy how much airtime on the entire ESPN family revolves around presenting the NBA as reality TV for dudes.
That works the other way too... Agents and GMs leak stuff before Christmas because they know it will get attention and it is incentivized by the league calendar (you get to set expectations in front of trade deadline /extension deadline and solicit off-season interest/offers to gauge market). Was it James Harden/Morey who had the bizarre Christmas leak a few years back about an extension or potential trade?
The games were great, including Boxing Day. But lets focus on anything but the games.
What does ES think of the following: If LeBronism can affect such luminaries as Anthony Davis (sorry, "AD"), how much could it have affected the rest of the market, especially (men's) college basketball? When was the last time there was a true (men's) college basketball star? Zion? Six(!) years ago? NIL and the transfer portal are definitely at least partially to blame for depriving us of stable, school-loyal stars, but could NIL and (especially) the transfer portal *themselves* be downstream of LeBronism?
LBJ and KD XMas day comments on low ratings/NFL challenge implicitly acknowledges some player responsibility. Big step towards Stern-ian "restoration of order"
I accidentally listened to the AI narration.
No parenthetical musings. No reflexive insecurity related to pronunciation of obscure phrases and names. Bland intonation.
When the winter break ends I’ll be back in the office where I can record
There's a reason he narrates all his articles on his podcast.
HoS is great at coming up with interesting take after interesting take on the NBA's popularity. If I had just one wish on something to add, it would be some sort of data to back the argment up.
Or maybe that's just my own idiosyncrasies talking.
Also: "because they lack AAU friends to join"
What is AAU?
AAU is an amateur basketball circuit for secondary school aged players that has a ton of tournaments and club teams. The teams are self-formed so you can hop around, they aren't really tied to a school or region. The elite prospects often join a team sponsored by a show company and go to travel tournaments all over the country with a lot of scouts at them. But the games don't really matter all that much. Some people who are really into following prospects will watch highlights on social media. It's sort of become a Boogeyman for what's wrong with player development in American basketball or the culture surrounding NBA players but arguably isn't as bad as people say it is.
Shoe company, not show. Nike and others have entire teams and leagues that they sponsor and agents are all over these kids.