Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Bad ratings or poor broadcasts?

[Webster's Dictionary]

I can't remember a time when I was so disinterested in basketball. Usually I at least follow the playoffs with at least a curiosity, however I have not watched probably more than 20 minutes total of the playoffs since the Blazers were bounced. So I decided to go to the ratings to see if others were sharing this sentiment.

It turns out that ever since NBC was pushed aside for ABC, ratings have generally been lower than they've ever before. Save for the 2004 Pistons beating the Lakers, the finals have not rated above a 10, while between 1982 and 2002 on CBS and NBC, ratings never once fell below 10.

So what caused this? Is it the fact that the NBA has turned into a bunch of overpaid prima donnas? Is it the fact that referees seem to be over controlling (or even outright rigging) the games? Is it the fact that more and more of the playoffs are on cable networks so that the games are not as easily accessible to the casual fan? Is it all based on the fact that ABC's broadcasts are so overproduced that it makes you want to throw up all over their commentary and graphics.

One thing is for sure, for all the hype that ESPN and ESPECIALLY David Stern spews, the NBA is not doing very well. This is at a time when people are looking to spend less on entertainment and should be staying home more and tuning in to things like the NBA, but like me, a die hard Blazers fan and former fan of the NBA as a whole, I'm just not interested. For all these reasons and more.

In your mind what is the biggest thing that's bringing the NBA down?

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

Boring playoffs....

 

[Wheels]

Timbers

 

[THE HCP]

Bad matchups! No big game 7's like usual.

 

[Webster's Dictionary]

The playoffs have been very dull this year, and I guess you could argue over the better part of the decade, but you can't tell me that every year of playoffs between 1982 and 2002 was more compelling than every year of playoffs from 2003-2010. I wanted to wait to put in my part, but I here from a lot of people that they, "Used to be into the NBA," and they "Used to be into the Blazers." When I ask them why they're not anymore I get one of two answers: Officiating or Jailblazers. If I get Jailblazers I'm quick to remind them what a good character team we have now, and what a good guy Brandon Roy is. If I get officiating, there's not much I can say, because I can't agree more.

It's become a game of take it to basket and draw a foul if you're a super star. And the Blazers are not exempt. Brandon Roy does it a lot too.

 

[oldmangrouch]

For hardcore fans, it's the poor officiating. For casual fans, it's the poor quality of network TV coverage.

 

[Denny Crane]

ABC shows NBA games?

Maybe it is a lack of parity. The east has 4 good teams, only 1 seems a true contender. The West had 6 sub .500 teams and a 7th that was 42-40; the 50 win teams aren't really contenders.

There's a lack of true stars, and they seem to be older and on just a few teams.

The game is about money (CBA) and not about talent.

 

[LittleAlex]

The horrific officiating makes the game almost unwatchable.

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

ABC shows NBA games?

Maybe it is a lack of parity. The east has 4 good teams, only 1 seems a true contender. The West had 6 sub .500 teams and a 7th that was 42-40; the 50 win teams aren't really contenders.

There's a lack of true stars, and they seem to be older and on just a few teams.

The game is about money (CBA) and not about talent.

I was going to suggest something like this. The NBA has become so predictable that I can totally understand why people have tuned it out.

Also, 2003 is the year they changed the first round to a best-of-seven series from the previous five game format. That alone seemed to take out a lot of the parity, but maybe it's just my imagination.

 

[tlongII]

I think it's the bad theme music. Ever since they went away from the theme written by John Tesh the ratings have plummeted.

 

[hasoos]

IMO the league has lost a lot of intensity since they implemented the restrictions on defense, and the no celebration rules. By removing those, they removed much of what created intensity in basketball games to begin with.

 

[speeds]

[video=youtube;UooitEU6AtE]

 

[BlazerWookee]

Overproduction is what makes me turn the channel.

 

[ironcrotch]

NBA on NBC were the days, that theme song is how I remember falling in love with NBA.

It was professional. The announcers were professional.

They had people like Marv Albert, Bob Costas. Now we gotta deal with blow hards like Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith. No disrespect to guys like Mike Breen and Ernie Johnson, I think those guys are great but it's just sad when you think of NBA commentators now, you have to think of knuckleheads.

 

[LittleAlex]

The comercials were also killing me.

"Are We There Yet" can suck a bag full of dicks.

 

[hasoos]

The horrific officiating makes the game almost unwatchable.

Actually the part that is most disturbing to me, is all the announcers know that favoritism is going on, but they act like that is the normal cool shiznit, business as usual. Player A got this call, and player B didn't get it because he isn't player A. Then they laugh about it. Isn't it great. So awesome and hilarious that the refs show favoritism. Oh wait it's not? What do you mean?

 

[blazerboy30]

For me it is the idea (fact?) that the refs just have too much impact on the game. Every single possession contains many incidents that could draw a whistle, according to how the rules are written. It is then up to the refs to decide how the game will be played, and who will get the benefit of the calls.

I love the Blazers and I love basketball, but, on the other hand, I love how for the most part, I don't even realize the refs are at the game during a college football game.

 

[KingSpeed]

The lack of Jordan.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/04/20/nba-postseason-broadcast-ratings-1987-2007/3413

 

[KingSpeed]

NBA on NBC were the days, that theme song is how I remember falling in love with NBA.

It was professional. The announcers were professional.

They had people like Marv Albert, Bob Costas. Now we gotta deal with blow hards like Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith. No disrespect to guys like Mike Breen and Ernie Johnson, I think those guys are great but it's just sad when you think of NBA commentators now, you have to think of knuckleheads.

Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith aren't announcers and Marv Albert still is.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Agree with all of the other reasons and will add two more that make the finals for me unwatchable (most of the time).

1. Overexposure. Basketball has been on every night on TNT, ESPN, or league pass for months. It really has to be an intriguing matchup or one of my teams playing in order for me to watch. The players are also in the news and on TV all the time as well.

2. Growing old. I wonder if I would have had the same enthusiasm for watching Bird, Magic, and Jordan if I had been older and they would have been under the scrutiny of today's media. I respected them no matter because they were older than me, but it could have been different if older and seen stories of Bird smoking pot, Magic screwing everything and subsequently getting AIDS, or Jordan's gambling exploits magninified.

For the Celtics and Lakers, I see KG acting like an idiot on all fours guarding Calderon and Bayless. I see Rondo punching Brad Miller in the face and proclaiming to be an elite point guard even though he plays next to three HOFers. I see Paul Pierce also pointing out how great he is. I see Kobe as still unmature, Odom the pot smoking idiot that could be a great player, and Artest as the player that set the Pacers back years.

Will probably watch more college softball world series than I do basketball for the next couple of weeks.

 

[ironcrotch]

Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith aren't announcers and Marv Albert still is.

They aren't but you know they wouldn't have sniffed within 10 feet of an NBC set.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

Great Thread. Let me put my two cents in.

Every generation of NBA fans thinks their generation's was the best. This applies to both teams and coverage. Back in the late 70s and 80s, when the NBA on CBS and Brent Musberger was the king of the hill, the NBA underwent a golden age, which really started with Dr. J, but came full bloom with Magic/Bird, where game broadcasts were an event. There were fewer teams, so the talent pool was more concentrated on several elite teams that had multiple excellent players, and even the middling and lower-tier teams had players that could win games on any given night. The main broadcasters of Musberger and Dick Stockton were big-time stars in their own right, and watching a game they called was must-see.

When NBC took over in 1991, they were the fortunate beneficiaries of the rise of Michael Jordan. Bob Costas, Marv Albert, and the "Roundball Rock" theme all just... worked. At the time, NBA fans grumbled about what then was "overproduction", which by today's standards are laughably amaturish. But one thing that the NBC people did well was frame the game in terms that casual fans understood... explaining rivalries, player feelings, historical meanings. They spoke the game to people who were just tuning in to watch a guy named MJ, and ended up getting hooked on NBA basketball. NBC games were even more of an "event" feeling. Playoff races were glamorized, and well marketed, both by the league and the network. They took everything that CBS was doing well, and improved it. Good announcers, good storytelling, and good basketball.

When ABC/ESPN took control in 2003, they decided that they were the gods of sports broadcasting and shitcanned everything that made the broadcasts special. They destroyed the concept of the "big weekend games"... because they had 24 hours of programming to fill on multiple networks, so they shotgunned the product out to various time periods, channels, and varying levels of brodcast quality. It confused and alienated the casual NBA fan. And perhaps, that was unavoidable, given the marketplace and the fragmented attention span of the common viewer. But ABC/ESPN didn't even try. They, through hubris and arrogance, decided that THEY knew what the common fan wanted. And by the ratings, they have dismally failed.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

NEW YORK (AP)—The opener of the Celtics-Lakers NBA finals matched the teams’ meeting two years ago for the highest preliminary rating for a Game 1 since 2004.

Los Angeles’ 102-89 win Thursday night on ABC earned a 10.4 overnight rating, up 17 percent from the 8.9 for last year’s Magic-Lakers series.

I guess LA vs. Boston is good for the NBA.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Did you notice in KS's ratings graphs that the two Portland finals matchups were the lowest of their eras (pre-Jordanite and Jordanite eras)? No wonder we're being stonewalled by Stern.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

The 92 playoffs themselves, not just the finals, had the highest ratings ever. We all know that the PDX-Utah series drove all that

 

[LOTBfan]

I believe that there is simply too much basketball to keep people interested. Too many games, too many teams, too many recaps and highlights. Every channel has experts trying to fuill you in since there is no way to watch all of it any more, which leads to my biggest gripe: too many freaking cell phone commercials!

Some transparency in the officiating wouldnt hurt, a coach's challenge for time outs for example would reign it in a little.

But really, I already have a cell phone, and having to watch playoff games for 2 months straight wants me to never add a line or pick my 5 (it really doesn't help that they have Chuck slingin em).

 

[jlprk]

I don't know what you mean by overproduction. They used to use a lot more slow motion than now. They also used the telestrator or whatever it's called. Mike Fratello was the Czar of it. There were more angles from cameramen sitting under the backboard. When ESPN first got the contract they had an angle looking straight up at players from holes in the floor.

I think it's underproduced, and too informal with the TNT post-game nonsense. But the bigger reason for lower ratings is that Stern's talent for marketing = overexposure. They are synonyms. He spread the basketball sea wider, which made it more shallow. Same reason for the decline in ratings of talk shows, and of the 3 main TV networks in general. Ratings are a mile wide but an inch deep.

 

[KingSpeed]

When ABC/ESPN took control in 2003, they decided that they were the gods of sports broadcasting and shitcanned everything that made the broadcasts special. They destroyed the concept of the "big weekend games"... because they had 24 hours of programming to fill on multiple networks, so they shotgunned the product out to various time periods, channels, and varying levels of brodcast quality. It confused and alienated the casual NBA fan. And perhaps, that was unavoidable, given the marketplace and the fragmented attention span of the common viewer. But ABC/ESPN didn't even try. They, through hubris and arrogance, decided that THEY knew what the common fan wanted. And by the ratings, they have dismally failed.

Great point. NBC showed a few NBA games every weekend. They also took over the playoffs in the middle of the conference finals in both conferences.

 

[Webster's Dictionary]

I think it's underproduced, and too informal with the TNT post-game nonsense. But the bigger reason for lower ratings is that Stern's talent for marketing = overexposure. They are synonyms. He spread the basketball sea wider, which made it more shallow. Same reason for the decline in ratings of talk shows, and of the 3 main TV networks in general. Ratings are a mile wide but an inch deep.

I agree. I guess I feel like they've replaced well thought out insight and a sense of class with the flashy, glitzy graphic overlays, and attempts at comedy. I don't know. Maybe it's nostalgia or whatever, but it felt like the broadcasts of yesterday were so much more about the game. Maybe they just talked less. Maybe it's just a lack of Bob Costas, who I consider one of the greatest announcers in the history of sports.

 

[Denny Crane]

The NCAA has more teams, more players. I don't think the NBA has too many.

When the ABA and NBA merged, it brought the talent of two leagues into one's worth of teams, so you'd have a lot of really deep and talented teams. As those players retired, there aren't enough stars to replace the outgoing ones. There are stars today, sure, but I suggest by default and not by earning it.

There is no Magic/Bird kind of rivalry. There is no Bulls have to overcome the Bad Boys kind of rivalry.

The game has become too perimeter oriented. A lot of offenses seem to be drive and kick for 3pt shots, or pass around the 3pt line to get an open shot.