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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

There are just far more entertainment options than there were a decade ago. The internet, Netflix, DVR recording, MMA, NASCAR, expansion of cable broadcasting....there are just so many more entertainment options on a couch on a boring sunday afternoon than watch an NBA game compared to 2000 or 1990.

For me MMA has taken a huge chunk out of my NBA watching time. Straight up honest-to-goodness fights with completely unbiased refs and athletes working their asses off for the next fight and the next paycheck...is there a bigger contrast in how two pro athlete sports are run than the NBA and MMA?

I still watch the Blazers, but if they had another 21 win season I'm not sure I still would. Probably....maybe....