Let's face it. The NFL has risen above the rest of the sports entertainment choices and the only close competitor is college football. I used to love watching the NBA, but in the past few years, I've noticed my preferences change. I even prefer college basketball to the pros now. Football may just be a more entertaining sport, but that wouldn't explain why I still enjoy college basketball.
Many are commenting on the NBA's rating's collapse, but I thought I might offer a different opinion. I believe that the NBA's ratings have been in a steady decline because of their over-emphasis on players over teams. Many sports pundits will freak out and say that I'm just a LeBron hater, but think about what you are revealing in that statement. You didn't insinuate that I hate the Lakers but that I hate LeBron. I don't. Check out the commentary I made about him last year. LeBron isn't the problem. The NBA's sole focus on LeBron is the problem. They put all of their eggs in one basket and I think it has failed them.
The NFL places such an emphasis on "team" and "the complete picture." The NBA has abandoned any sense of tradition. College sports have no choice but to focus on the team because players come and go quickly, but that is now the case in the NBA, too. LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving, and others bounce around the NBA consistently. This constant bouncing around puts fans in an awkward position. We can either root for our team, or we can follow our favorite player around.
Let's be honest though, do we all watch our favorite player no matter what? Or do we watch when they are on? We choose which NFL and college games to watch based on matchups and the importance of the game. For the NBA, can we really do that? They don't market the Lakers versus the Heat. Instead, they market LeBron Versus Butler. Well, that doesn't sound like a fun narrative, does it? Unless you are one of the weirdos that are obsessed with LeBron James, that is a crappy story. Would you watch Superman versus Floyd Mayweather? No, I wouldn't either. What I would watch is a narrative of Thanos and the Black Order against the Avengers. If they had set up the Lakers as the rebirth of Showtime or the all-powerful, crushing everything in their path team and the Heat as the scrappy, young, and ready for a brawl team, the matchup is more interesting even if LeBron is not playing.
That's the biggest conundrum though, isn't it? What happens to the NBA when LeBron leaves? Are they going to, once again, crown an heir to the throne? Who would it be? Kevin Durant, Steph Curry, Zion, or Luka? What if they ditched that whole model because it's based on Michael Jordan. There's no logical way to rebuild that magic. MJ did a one-time trick for the NBA. He's the Babe Ruth of the sport. You can say all you want about Babe Ruth: His era was different, the parks were too small, he'd suck now. It doesn't matter. These kinds of players are organic and not produced. That's not a slight on LeBron's talent either, but the hype around him is produced. MJ rose out of an era with the Celtic's magic, Showtime Lakers, and the Bad Boy Pistons. If you look at MJ as a singular figure then his image was grown more by coming out of the era of basketball that he did than by who he beat in the Finals.
You can't have the same narrative for LeBron because the NBA shoves all team identities under the rug in favor of player matchups. 20 years from now no one will care that LeBron beat Butler, but Laker's fans will care that they beat the Heat. They'll cherish LeBron because he helped their team win a title and not because he was LeBron.
The player focus steals so many narratives from the fans. If LeBron had never left Cleveland and won a title it would have made for a better story. Can anyone deny that? Set aside the "what's best for him" attitude for a minute and think about it from a narrative perspective. LeBron is free to work wherever he wants, just like any other NBA player. That's great, but that's not my point. The point is that the NBA alienates many fans by focusing on the player. They are even forced into it now because the better players bunch together on fewer teams and who can blame them? Do you want to win? Go to the best organization or the organization that gives you the best chance to fulfill your career goals.
This situation is a quagmire. There's no organic way out of it. The NFL placed their bets on long-term sustainable growth through emphasizing teams. You can say that they put quarterbacks on a pedestal and that's true to some extent; however, have these quarterbacks, the great ones at least, not become synonymous with their teams? Russel Wilson and the Seahawks. Aaron Rodgers and the Packers. Pat Mahomes and the Chiefs. Drew Brees and the Saints. Lamar Jackson and the Ravens. Can you do that with the NBA for more than a year?
So, what can the NBA even hope to do? First step, improve the on-court product by moving the 3-point line back or removing it altogether, and then re-emphasize defense and increasing the difficulty to score. It is better to watch something when it is difficult to do. They have to get rid of this constant 3-point shooting and the weak defense. There was a time when I could not pull my eyes off the TV when watching an NBA game. That time has passed. I get distracted as the game is only played from 3-point line to 3-point line.
Quite frankly, it's boring, and before anyone can beat me to it, that's why I hardly watch anymore. The 2005 NBA finals are a prime example of the NBA's inability to market the sport or the team. The Pistons and Spurs of that era were consummate teams and defensive juggernauts. Every bucket in those games was earned. It wasn't wide-open three after wide-open three. That's the kind of basketball they should have been marketing. The problem with how they marketed that series is that they had a lack of faith in basketball fans. They have to believe that the game of basketball can itself be worth watching. If they don't have that belief, then I can see why they scrapped any inkling of team or product based advertising. The NBA is no longer fantastic. It's mostly a 3-point shooting contest.
The second suggestion is to eliminate 5-10 teams. I know that seems counterintuitive to any business, but this would consolidate the talent and make every game competitive. Furthermore, teams that are halfway decent would start receiving the first pick and elevating themselves a lot quicker. Overall, the narratives would be better. It could set up cage match style playoff matchups. Every team would have a shot every year. As far as money goes, each team would have more cap space to build a better roster because the TV money could spread across 20-24 teams instead of 30. As far as TV deals go, more people would watch if they felt that the games would be more competitive. Players would have to compete even harder to keep a roster spot. This competition could raise the competition of play even more. Guys would be fighting to stay on the team even more than they are now.
To summarize: Sell basketball; Sell teams; Stop selling players. That's the only way the NBA can turn it around.
What do you think? Is there something else causing the NBA's ratings collapse? Is there a different solution? Feel free to share your thoughts.
For more material like this, click here to see all previous sports-related posts. Also, consider subscribing or following us on Facebook or Instagram so you never miss an update.