NBA Ratings

NBA ratings have been taking a dip of biblical proportions this season. So much so that the powers-that-be are actually considering making MAJOR changes to the league as we know it. Shortening the season to 78 games, changing the playoff format by re-seeding the final 4 teams, and adding a mid-season 30-team tournament.

I don’t know if this is being progressive, or reeking of desperation…It may be a healthy mix of both. I do know that there have already been nine nationally televised games this season have failed to net 1 million viewers. To put that into context, this only happened Nineteen times ALL OF LAST SEASON. That means that people aren’t tuning in to the NBA regular season like they used to. Mark Cuban blames it on households “cutting the cord”…and while I think this probably has something to do with it, I don’t think it would account for this big of a dip.

Here are some of the obvious factors that I think are causing people to tune out. There’s the east/west region-bias. We see the same thing when in other major sports when it comes to end-of-season awards, especially in college football. Heisman Trophy voters admitting that they’ve never even seen the PAC-12 player play. People on the east coast simply aren’t staying up to watch the teams/players on the west coast. There are the other obvious issues: The NBA’s most popular and most polarizing player, Lebron James, playing out in LA. Zion Williamson was being heralded as the biggest NBA prospect since LBJ, and he got hurt and is missing the beginning of the season. KD left, Klay got hurt, and The Warriors now stink (that team is going to get a lottery pick, AND have a healthy Steph/Klay/Draymond/Russsell…but we’ll save that for another day). All of these things contribute to the ratings dip. But I don’t think this is the whole story, and I think there are deeper-rooted issues…

Here are a couple of things that I see:

1. I’m pretty sure that I’m in the minority here, but I think super-teams are actually hurting the NBA. Everyone shouldn’t be friends with everyone (I have the same problem with the PGA Tour right now). I don’t need my favorite team’s best player riding jet-skis with the best player from their rival team. A little hatred is good…hell, it’s GREAT for sports. Need proof? See: Lakers/Celtics, Pistons/Bulls, Michigan/OSU, Notre Dame/Michigan, UNC/Duke, Steelers/Browns, Chiefs/Raiders, Lions/Bears, USA/Patriots, and OF COURSE Calvin/Hope. I would much rather see stars be stars on their own teams and overcome other teams and great players, rather than joining up and forming super-teams full of all-stars.
2.  Piggy-backing on the super-teams point is this: The regular season is bordering on pointless without parity in the NBA. Right now, I can pretty safely predict who the top 3-4 teams in each conference will be, come playoff time (in no particular order). East-Bucks, Celtics, Raptors…West-Lakers, Clippers, Rockets, Nuggets. If you don’t root for a super-team, hopefully your team is playing for the chance to be a 5-8 seed and be a warm-up series for the big boys. Most of these teams will be happy to win a game in the series. Sure, there might be one upset series, but I can promise you that it isn’t going to be against a 1-2 seed.

Of course this whole thing hinges on the stars being void of injuries, which no one can predict. I think if LBJ and AD don’t start managing their minutes, one/both of them is getting hurt. LBJ has a lot of miles, and AD is an injury-prone player, Kawhi is already on “load-management”, and who knows what Zion will be when he comes back. I would argue the only things saving the NBA right now are DFS, and the emergence of Luka…but that can only take you so far.

Good luck NBA…this guy will see you in the conference finals.

-Czar

Pay For Play? Not For This Fan

So college players want to be paid for playing sports and someone else benefitting financially. I get it, and I don’t fault them for that. But I think there has to be a better way to set this whole thing up that somehow avoids the entire college sports arena becoming a “pay for play” operation. I have some thoughts, and one alternative idea:

First of all, there needs to be a limitation on how much a player can earn, or “benefit” from his/her likeness. Without limitations, what would stop schools with the wealthiest boosters (I know the Ivy League tops the list, but let’s face it…they don’t really play football with the big boys) like Texas, Notre Dame, Michigan, Southern California, and Northwestern from simply throwing more money at recruits than other? Or what would stop a major college program from partnering with a major company (Nike Jodan, UA, Adidas, McDonalds, Burger King, Verizon, etc) and getting an agreement to place certain recruits in commercials in exchange for attending a particular school? The majority of the recruiting process would come down to which school can promise a high-school kid the biggest bag of money. This is a slippery slope, so as a result there needs to be some sort of calculation or scale on which these players can “benefit”.

Secondly, this entire new-fangled system seems focused on football, but don’t forget, there are 460,000 NCAA student athletes…not all of whom would necessarily be able to benefit from their likeness, but realistically every division 1 athlete would be able to do so. Easily one of the most interesting sports would be collegiate golf, which is centered around amateurism. The USGA, and its tournaments, are very clear about keeping amateur status while competing in events.

My suggestion for changing up the system? A trust fund. This is particularly pertinent for football and basketball players. When a player attends a school to play football/basketball, a trust fund is created for that student-athlete. In the event that the athlete leaves the school early for the NFL or NBA (drafted or undrafted), he would then forfeit his trust fund (very interesting in the NBA “One and Done” era. Those players that stay and earn a degree will receive their allotted trust fund upon graduation. Fund amounts would be based on the revenue created by the program (merchandising, TV deals, bowl/tournament money, and conference revenue). While this would seem to give an advantage to those schools that generate larger revenues than others, ONLY players earning a degree would have access to their trust fund money. The reasoning behind this is simple: those players that are leaving college early to play football professionally, have most likely been graded high enough that they are going to play football at the next level. These players would likely make more in a signing bonus than their trust fund would be. Want your money guaranteed? Stay and earn a degree.

“Scholarships” would still exist, and would include room & board, meal stipends, and tuition…much the same as they exist right now. This is the least a college/university can do with the amount of money that they are making off of student athletes.