NBA TV Ratings
- Thread starter oldsports_
- Start date
So, based on your post, you are claiming that:
- "egos are killing the product" - this is so vague as to be nigh-useless, but cool. I'll respond by saying that greed is ruining the world, I guess.
- Uncalled travels from 2017 are... somehow linked to either "egos" or a year-over-year decline in ratings from 2018 to 2019.
Its mainly due to no LeBron, anyone looking for a deeper reason cant see the forest through the trees. That guy is the NBA, and has been the NBA for a longer stretch than MJ given MJ didn't arrive with the same hype (#3 pick), played in college, and left the game twice. That does not mean LBJ > MJ, it just means that LeBron has commanded the spotlight for about 17 years now vs MJ who basically only owned the 90s and voluntarily gave up 1.75 seasons of his prime. If this year is the beginning of the end for LeBron being a postseason force then the NBA ratings are in for a recession until someone else fills that void of being the polarizing superstar in the discussion for the "GOAT" on the superteam.
Last edited:
I think having a bunch of super stars on one team hurts, ie...Golden State.
Also, the big market teams are down the tubes. Besides Boston.
Having LA, NY, and Chicago all sucking has to be hurting. I would throw in Dallas as well, although they aren't your traditional NBA power.
Also, the big market teams are down the tubes. Besides Boston.
Having LA, NY, and Chicago all sucking has to be hurting. I would throw in Dallas as well, although they aren't your traditional NBA power.
EvilMonkeyInTheCloset
Well-Known Member
Or how about f*** those four teams and they stay away from the national championship scene for a few decades............how bout that?
There’s always been a bunch of super stars on one team. Go back to the Bill Russell days.
I don't know that there is an "in the discussion with the GOAT players" guy in the NBA other than LeBron right now. And it's been almost 30 years since that was the case with it going from MJ to Kobe to LeBron. Durant is the closest thing. And interestingly he doesn't get a lot of credit because he went to the finals with the team that drafted him and was eliminated pretty quickly, but LeBron is revered and pretty much did the same thing going to the finals with Cleveland and then needing to team up with superstars to win his titles.
Durant is not the guy, I think he wants to be but hes just not. His personality is too small and when he tries his best to be an alpha with the media it just seems forced. He is also decidedly lesser than LeBron so its tough for him to gain the fanatical following both for and against him LeBron has even in a post LeBron NBA.
I think Giannis has what it takes to take over the league next but he is very likable at the moment, but so was LeBron in his early days. Giannis teaming up with a big ego like AD and dominating the league could be what the NBA needs next.
Totally agree that Durant is not that guy. No where near Lebron. Giannis...maybe. Next 3 years will be pivotal.
Yeah, but all 3 being shitty at once? I can't think back to when all 3 we're horrible.
Chicago outside of MJ is also a non factor pretty much every year. This is an unusually long down period for the Lakers I’ll give you that but the NBA’s peak post Jordan was the 2016 and 2017 finals. The worst thing that could have happened for the league was GS killing the Cavs in 2017, and the Cavs not getting stronger in response. A 4+ year back and forth between the two teams would have been ideal. The LeBron-Curry rivalry should have been basketball’s Ronaldo-Messi.
The Bulls weren't too bad a few years back.
I think Durant could help ratings on a team of his own. Too many European players and one and one college guys make it hard to warm up to these players and to get to know them.
I am a Celtics fan, so I watch when they are in it but outside of that, its 50/50 on the Finals. Depending on which teams and cities are involved.
If you frame it misleadingly, sure. But are you saying that 2007 Cleveland sans LeBron was basically 2012 OKC sans Durant? Because one had 3 young HOF players and the other decidedly did not. And the Durant/LeBron treatment goes both ways. Around the time that LeBron left Cleveland for the first time and was vilified, Durant signed a max in OKC and was praised for doing it "right" (i.e. not like LeBron). But Durant was extending his rookie contract, unlike LeBron (who had previously signed his rookie extension and fulfilled it), and when Durant was later in LeBron's shoes he left. The way the media and fans have treated these two in particular has been downright maddening in its inconsistency.
Agreed that we do not have a current player in/near his prime that is GOAT discussion worthy, although I think Giannis can get into the top 10 all-time and Harden has a chance to surpass Kobe as the second best SG of all-time (Kobe-stans will strongly disagree, but the stats case is building). And Durant might have an MVP push left if he's not on the Warriors and can stay healthy/focused; he's not up there with the true GOATs, but he's got a top-10 all-time chance as well.
The ratings are best on TV. There’s just lower ratings on tv in general because there are more options and more people cutting cords.
When there’s one nba game televised, every person who wants to watch nba must watch that game. When there’s 3 televised, you can pick and choose and split viewership. Same with college football.
Just gonna have to agree to disagree. 1999-2008 was a lull. A bad one.
But it’s not “maybe” for the ratings being the best on TV. On Sunday it’s been beating every non-Game of Thrones: https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/sunday-cable-ratings-april-21-2019/
And last Tuesday and Wednesday it was tops both days. And this is just the first round.
Last edited:
On my YoutubeTV we have to opt out of being part of the nielsen ratings. I don't know about other live tv streaming services.
"Nielsen believes that you should have a choice about whether to contribute to our research and insights. If you are not currently a Nielsen panelist and do not wish to participate in Nielsen's digital measurement research, you may opt out on browsers by clicking here."
Last edited:
That was a set shot due his enormous nuts holding him down.
So soft. Cant handle some dudes not answering questions? Really? Who even watches that crap? FFS
A lot of people seem to think the NBA talent level is way up vs a decade ago.
Don't you think the skill level is way down? Granted, I don't watch much these days.
Don't you think the skill level is way down? Granted, I don't watch much these days.
No, the opposite. Skill level is way up. How many 6'11 and 7'0 foot guys 25 years ago could shoot and pass like Durant, Giannis, Jokic, etc.? How many guys could consistently make contest shots from 25+ feet?
Guy like Garnett was once a unicorn. Now there are 5 or 6 of him in the league.
There is also an explosion of growth of the game being played at higher levels overseas. No there is not a challenger to USA basketball internationally, but it feels like there are more overseas superstars now more than ever before.
Interest is down. There’s just more to do with our time than there was 20 years ago.
As far as Westbrook and the reporter...they’re a good match for each other. Media have a huge sense of entitlement as do many pro athletes. And it seems to be especially prevalent in the nba. Westbrook and the reporter in question here are both strong examples of it.
There are more 7 footers with range but I’m not sure the overall skill level is higher. I’m also factoring in bb IQ and fundamentals.
Plus there’s way more isolation. The other day I watched a Suns-Spurs game from 15 years ago and it reminded me of how great the NBA can be when they actually play team ball. Far more entertaining than today’s game IMO. But again, I rarely watch anymore.
You don't need to keep saying you rarely watch anymore. It's very obvious from your statements.
The skill, IQ, fundamentals are at a very high level. The expansion of the game internationally has been a big part of that.
And the ISO stuff, sounds like you're talking about games from 2006. Spurs and Golden State have ushered in a whole new era of team ball and tons of pasing.
Maybe if we stop paying them out of high school and treating them like some kind of gods. But until then, expect more of the same
The USA model for elite athletes is flawed, I think the scholastic model is inherently shit but it is too engrained in our society to make a wholesale change. USA's lack of success on the world stage in soccer despite massive participation is a big indicator of our youth development being a flawed system IMO, and our Olympic dominance comes from our size and title 9.
Elite talent at the youth level regardless of sport should not be at a high school public or private with other "normal" kids dunking on or running over rec league competition until they turn 18 and are typically forced to go to college with other normal kids and balance being a normal student with competing against (finally) other elite talents. A decision should be made pre high school if a kid can earn a scholarship to a place like IMG and if they are good enough at age 16 to compete with 20 year olds, they should be bumped up to U23 squads.
That's where the God complex comes from, and that's what stunts the growth of a lot of players IMO. They grow up in places where their local community is in awe of them, and they out athlete everyone for 4 years and when they finally start competing with other players that can compete a lot of them struggle to adjust because it was so easy for so long.
Last edited:
Similar threads
