As a whole, the NBA has lost around 45% of its viewership since 2012.
- Thread starter CHICAGO
- Start date
LMAO
THAT REVENUE IS DIRECTLY FROM
THE TV CONTRACT THAT THE 2012 ERA
GOT THESE GUYS AND INFLATION.
I get what you mean but I think when it's all said and done, what people will most remember both Bron and Kyrie for basketball wise is the way they made that first ever 1-3 Finals comeback by competing til the end. There's more than one way to inspire competitiveness.
Spliff
Godzilla got busy.
That condensed ‘11-‘12 season was crack tho and one of my favorites seasons ever.
First Take was also at or approaching its zenith at that time between Skip morphing into the ultimate Bron hater, Tebow-Mania, and Stephen A working his way back into his full-time spot. Show was untouchable and kept “storyline viewers” fed all year.
With that said, this is about TV ratings and that’s just an archaic way of judging viewership in 2024.
First Take was also at or approaching its zenith at that time between Skip morphing into the ultimate Bron hater, Tebow-Mania, and Stephen A working his way back into his full-time spot. Show was untouchable and kept “storyline viewers” fed all year.
With that said, this is about TV ratings and that’s just an archaic way of judging viewership in 2024.
Unbothered
ELEVATING to HIGHER LEVELS with POSITIVE VIBES ✨
The league from around 2011-2017 was pretty weak in terms of competition. A lot of people complain about the competitiveness of today's NBA, but arguably, the league is better now than it was during that Miami Big 3, Spurs run, OKC rising, and the early part of GS dynasty era ('15-'17).
The league didn't have many great teams during that era. The competition felt pretty dry, and the seasons felt decided long before opening night. Heat, Pacers, Spurs, Thunder, Warriors, Cavs, and briefly the Bulls were the only noteworthy teams during that time. It was a watershed moment for the NBA because everything seemed unbalanced.
Ratings might not be up now, but overall, the league is better in terms of having a balance
.
The league didn't have many great teams during that era. The competition felt pretty dry, and the seasons felt decided long before opening night. Heat, Pacers, Spurs, Thunder, Warriors, Cavs, and briefly the Bulls were the only noteworthy teams during that time. It was a watershed moment for the NBA because everything seemed unbalanced.
Ratings might not be up now, but overall, the league is better in terms of having a balance
.
That’s cute but they get paid from advertisers.
Soldier
not redeemed with gold but with His Blood
The NBA had super teams a decade ago and people complained about how meaningless the seasons were. Plenty of fans were saying back then that watching games was pointless because the cavs/warriors/spurs/heat, the Kobe and gasol lakers and the big 3 Celtics would easily win the title anyway.
And the mainstream sports media always talked about the so-called « Low ratings » of the NBA. In the early 2000s, last decade etc. There were and there still are plenty of news articles about the matter. You can find all of them on the internet.
I remember people saying stuff like :
« Fast forward to the predictable cavs/warriors finals »
« We all know Miami will come out from the east »
« We will have a Spurs vs Heat finals no need to watch a playoff game before the finals are set »
« free agent DeMarcus ´´Boogie’’ cousins just signed with the warriors, from now on, cancel the season and give them the NBA championship trophy again. This super team era makes it so pointless to watch seasons and games. »
Last edited:
murksiderock
Superstar
The ratings are down because fewer people watch games...
But just as many people probably consume NBA content as in years past...
If today's technology existed in eras past, those eras would have these same conversations...
My basketball lifespan, the time I can with full cognizance remember basketball culture, dates to 1999, I was 10 years old when I really started paying attention to sports. So I think this thread has opened up some other relevant conversation points!
I don't think there's ever been a time that NBA following wasn't dominated by fair-weather, casual fandom.
And I think this is based on the culture of the league itself. It's ALWAYS been players over teams, it's always been individualized. The teams that mattered way back.......were the teams with the great players. This has always been a stark contrast to the NFL, which, every team matters. Not simply the teams with the best players...
The NBA hits its peaks in popularity when there are dynasties. The Lakers and Spurs of the 00s. LeBron (he was a dynasty by himself, none of his teams were). The Warriors. And on that note, the NBA hits its lower points when there aren't any. The way the fans engage the sport, it's always been that way...
The other problem too, I do think having foreigners as your best players is hurting The League. I just spent 3 weeks in Denver (going back in January for 2 months), they care about Jokic there but he's not bigger than the Broncos there. That's IN Denver, so we know what his cultural resonance is everywhere else...
LeBron at his height was bigger than both the Browns and the Dolphins, two historic football franchises. Jordan at his height was more of a draw than the Bears...
I think this also highlights, other people here have too, that today's young stars are not that much of a draw, and in a league that purposefully props and hypes the biggest names, this is a problem. That said, most of us here are older. The tweens, teens, and early 20s love the young guys we think are boring (Tatum, the foreigners, etc). It's mostly old people complaining about NBA ratings...
I don't know what the fix for play is, I do agree the play is wack. But again I'm 35, younger heads don't agree with me. And when I was 15, the then-35 year olds weren't all fans of the style of play then...
I don't know man, the NBA is what it is. Its still somewhat above MLB and NHL because it's stars are bigger. But in other ways it's a novelty sport, almost a regional sport. It's almost always beeb a, wait to the playoffs come, sport for me. That's what MLB and NHL are to me and it probably is in part because of the length of the seasons, for all. But at the same time, when my favorite players were in their heydays, I could be drawn more to catching games during the season...
I live in North Carolina and they love basketball and the NBA but the team here is historically awful and they don't have a star who matters. In Raleigh there's one Hornets billboard and this is the second biggest city in the state. Hell in Charlotte they are less popular than the new MLS team and not even in the same stratosphere as the Panthers. So this again hits on how there are no irrelevant NFL teams, really...
In contrast in Sacramento the team is a huge deal even though they don't matter nationally...
NBA is regional and only matters when the playoffs come...
But just as many people probably consume NBA content as in years past...
If today's technology existed in eras past, those eras would have these same conversations...
My basketball lifespan, the time I can with full cognizance remember basketball culture, dates to 1999, I was 10 years old when I really started paying attention to sports. So I think this thread has opened up some other relevant conversation points!
I don't think there's ever been a time that NBA following wasn't dominated by fair-weather, casual fandom.
And I think this is based on the culture of the league itself. It's ALWAYS been players over teams, it's always been individualized. The teams that mattered way back.......were the teams with the great players. This has always been a stark contrast to the NFL, which, every team matters. Not simply the teams with the best players...
The NBA hits its peaks in popularity when there are dynasties. The Lakers and Spurs of the 00s. LeBron (he was a dynasty by himself, none of his teams were). The Warriors. And on that note, the NBA hits its lower points when there aren't any. The way the fans engage the sport, it's always been that way...
The other problem too, I do think having foreigners as your best players is hurting The League. I just spent 3 weeks in Denver (going back in January for 2 months), they care about Jokic there but he's not bigger than the Broncos there. That's IN Denver, so we know what his cultural resonance is everywhere else...
LeBron at his height was bigger than both the Browns and the Dolphins, two historic football franchises. Jordan at his height was more of a draw than the Bears...
I think this also highlights, other people here have too, that today's young stars are not that much of a draw, and in a league that purposefully props and hypes the biggest names, this is a problem. That said, most of us here are older. The tweens, teens, and early 20s love the young guys we think are boring (Tatum, the foreigners, etc). It's mostly old people complaining about NBA ratings...
I don't know what the fix for play is, I do agree the play is wack. But again I'm 35, younger heads don't agree with me. And when I was 15, the then-35 year olds weren't all fans of the style of play then...
I don't know man, the NBA is what it is. Its still somewhat above MLB and NHL because it's stars are bigger. But in other ways it's a novelty sport, almost a regional sport. It's almost always beeb a, wait to the playoffs come, sport for me. That's what MLB and NHL are to me and it probably is in part because of the length of the seasons, for all. But at the same time, when my favorite players were in their heydays, I could be drawn more to catching games during the season...
I live in North Carolina and they love basketball and the NBA but the team here is historically awful and they don't have a star who matters. In Raleigh there's one Hornets billboard and this is the second biggest city in the state. Hell in Charlotte they are less popular than the new MLS team and not even in the same stratosphere as the Panthers. So this again hits on how there are no irrelevant NFL teams, really...
In contrast in Sacramento the team is a huge deal even though they don't matter nationally...
NBA is regional and only matters when the playoffs come...
League has told fans that the regular season is meaningless. People don’t want to waste their time watching something meaningless.
triplehate
Superstar
I'm also from North Carolina and just in my family you can see the generation gap of interest. My grandad is 83 conveniently he is a Celtics fan, Dad is 63 Laker fan Magic is his undisputed GOAT, I'm 43 and who was I fan of as a kid no surprise the bulls.
But they still only cared about the Russell Celtics and the showtime Lakers because that was their era even if the team was still successful they weren't locked in like that. Basketball isn't a generational sport, so the arguments you are having now about the sport I've been hearing since I was 10. You're not going to like whatever comes next in basketball evolution just introduce your kids to the game and let em rock
Torrential
LWO
NFL ratings are up or down you dumb fukk? Hockey ratings going up or down? Cable decline doesnt impact hockey but it impacts NBA?
ministryofsport.com
NHL viewership
NHL viewership is also up NHL playoff viewership climbs while NBA sees decline
NFL ratingsCable is dying, League Pass is a waste of money and there's more entertainment now than ever before (cats only have two eyeballs).
Over the last decade NBA is more popular than ever.
NFL TV Ratings Surge to Nine-Year High - Ministry of Sport
NFL viewership reaches 18.6 million in 2024, driven by star players and strategic matchups, reflecting a strong audience engagement trend.
ministryofsport.com
NHL viewership
NHL viewership is also up NHL playoff viewership climbs while NBA sees decline
murksiderock
Superstar
You in Greenville?
I agree with you. I do think NBA fandom is generational in home markets, but it's only there, which contributes to its regionalism. Sacramento loves the Kings, generations of fans. Same with LA and the Lakers, Boston and the Celtics, etc...
The Hornets been around awhile and still don't have no following like that. They aren't that relevant in the city or the state and I think that's a contrast to NFL where no team is truly irrelevant...
But I think the NBA probably always been this way...
Isn't style of play isn't 3pm the real reality is players switching teams which have gotten rid of rivalries/fandom. Nba can't book/build marquee matchups when team names no longer hold value they used too. I'm all for players empowerment but it has clearly ruined the league. You can't expect for new age fans or fans period to continue Fandom and restart every 4 years
Copy Ninja
Superstar
The NBA marketing star players and these players switching teams as often as they do does not help. Marketing star players back in the day worked because for the most part those players stuck with their teams throughout their prime. Fans can't get invested in following and rooting for a player who plays for their city when said player is probably gonna go play elsewhere in a few years. The sport becomes a casual follow, which is what's happening. Juxtapose this with the NFL where fans are wholly invested in their home team irrespective of who's playing for them because that's how the NFL markets their product.
