‘‘How a small-market NBA Finals affects the bottom line.” “Can small-market Finals teams punch above their weight in the ratings?” “History shows Pacers vs. Thunder may draw record-low ratings.”
Those were just the headlines. And those were before Game 1.
It has become a thing leading into the NBA’s latest iteration of its championship series. The talk of numbers, of eyeballs — or lack of them — affixed to these final NBA games, of ratings and viewership and advertiser remorse and how, more than anything, size and volume matter.
Even in his annual news conference leading into the Finals, NBA commissioner Adam Silver spent most of his 30 minutes talking about or answering questions related to the “market size” of the teams playing in the Finals or the doomsday predictions of the TV ratings based on the OKC and Indiana markets.
He even said in his out-loud voice: “It seems a little unusual how much discussion there is around ratings in this league. Even for me sort of walking on the street, fans coming up to me, it frustrates me that the first thing they say is, ‘How are the ratings? What are the ratings going to be?’ As opposed to, ‘Wow, you have two incredible conference finals, what a great playoff series you’ve had.’ ’’
I feel you, Adam. And feel for you.
Like, why can’t the main thing just be the main thing? Why the “box office” energy? Is basketball ever going to be allowed to be just about basketball anymore? Of course, that answer is a hard “No.” Because that is not the society we live in, and popularity doesn’t just pay the bills. It defines how we want the world to view us. Content is no longer king and queen, “followers” are. Viewers are. C.R.E.A.M. syndrome, yo: Clicks Rule Everything Around Me.
As Howard Homonoff wrote about this year’s NBA Finals in Forbes, “focusing so heavily on TV ratings is just so 1990s. There is a much more complex tableaux of media-measurement metrics that are ultimately far more relevant to [NBA Finals] business success and failure here.” In other words: Michael Jordan messed it up for everybody.
That same Forbes article made a great point: TV ratings universally have dropped 54% in the last 10 years, and broadcast and cable television account for less than 50% of all the video viewing in the United States alone. So why does it feel like the NBA is being targeted by this narrative in a way that no other professional sports league is? (Note: The WNBA is being targeted in a whole different way, but that’s a whole different story.)
At some point, we need to move beyond popularity (via sales, viewership or votes) as the primary form of value and validation. Tyrese Haliburton will never be as popular or generate any type of interest close to what LeBron James and Luka Doncic would have or if the Knicks had made it to the Finals, but he’s showing us all a brand of basketball that we should not miss.
And if you’re one of the ones missing it because you’re being told or hearing or believing that because teams from the 25th and 47th markets in the country are competing against one another — the teams that have earned the right to remain standing — then you are (in the words of the prophet Yoda) not the fool; you are the fool who’s following the fools.
Accepting the game’s two best teams — two perfectly matched teams, the two teams playing the best basketball in June — facing one another for the crown seems an impossible concept to grasp right now. Because to too many, that’s not enough. Where’s the sexiness, where are the external storylines? This is not a “happy to just be here” moment for either team. This series is basketball being its best version of itself. And we, as far as viewership is concerned, should always let that be our guide.
But, unfortunately, we can’t. Because at the core, we’re hypocrites.
The Spurs’ 2003 and 2007 title runs at the time were the two lowest-rated Finals by viewership since data started being collected on TV popularity for the NBA Finals. A 6.5 and 6.2 rating, respectively. Nielsen Media Research said that until the 2020 COVID “Bubble” Finals, the 2007 Finals was the lowest-rated of any NBA championship series. And both were lower than the only other below-7.0 rating in the modern era of NBA Finals — 1981’s 6.7 between the Celtics and Rockets. Yet we continue calling those Spurs championships part of a dynasty.
Yet we beg for greatness. Yet we don’t engage unless something “besides the games or teams themselves” are attached. And in front of us right now is a Finals series that has the potential to go down as something special. Yet all we want to talk about is ratings. Just trying to further deepen the point that popularity does not and should not always determine or define what has the power to be special or worthwhile. Damn us.
Ignoramuses.
Listen to Master Yoda. Don’t follow fools.