Hey everybody,Today is a big day. I'm going to pretend like I know exactly what is going on in the NBA these days. Because I don't really pay attention anymore, I only get whiffs what is actually going on. I know there was a lockout and games start-up on or around Christmas. I see trending topics on Twitter, Yahoo headlines, and the like. So, I know what's going on without KNOWING what's going on. That being said, not knowing all the facts never stopped me from having a strong opinion. Wow, I just felt like a Republican voter just then. Bam! You might have thought you were free of political talk today, but Republican bashing takes no break!
On Thursday, a trade involving Chris Paul going to the Lakers was agreed upon. It nearly caused the explosion of the Twitter-verse. The trade was negated by the league commissioner the next day. But from what I saw of the initial reaction, there was a bunch of hand-wringing over "super teams" and people worried about the competitive balance in the league. Well, this is something I do know about. I can tell you, with certainty (in soccer, but we'll get to the other sports), that competitive balance does not matter to fans, in any measurable way. This research is not from me, I'm passing on information gathered in a book called "Soccernomics." To sum it up, the book is as if someone put together a version of "Moneyball" for soccer. And, yes I realize there are people who won't know either of those references. It's why I supply the links.
The authors found that soccer's top-heavy, exclusive, glass-ceiling type structure does not harm them in any tangible way. For those that do not know, European soccer leagues do not employ any salary caps, luxury taxes, or any punitive revenue sharing. Our domestic league, Major League Soccer does. And, some think the parity holds the league back. Thanks to the setup overseas, European soccer matches can have a 1% vs. 99% feel (yeah, got my occupy reference in for the day! I'm trying to fill a personal quota).
Success breeds more success in European soccer. Top league finishers get into lucrative continental tournaments, clubs get TV money for being in these tournaments, and you invariably sell more merchandise thanks to the exposure. You can purchase and pay better players thanks to added revenue, thus getting you back into said lucrative tournaments. Then you rinse, lather, and repeat. It becomes a cycle that is nearly impossible to break. The end result is a glass ceiling for teams not at the top. Soccernomics even found that there is a 90% correlation with money spent on salary and where you finish in the league. In short, if you spend the most money on salaries, you have a 90% chance of winning the league. If you spend the 2nd most amount of money on salary, there's a 90% chance you'll be in 2nd place, and so on.
I know what you're thinking, "All of that sounds very boring for the fans." You would think so and I thought the same. The data they found is that, as the money has grown in soccer (namely the last 10-15 years), and the places in those lucrative tournaments have gone to mostly the same teams, attendance and TV ratings have not suffered. Conversely, most European soccer teams and leagues have seen growth in these areas. The book argued that the "David vs Goliath" aspect of some of the matches keeps fans interested week to week. Club branding, familiar faces and matches involving 2 "super clubs" keep people invested long-term.
 |
Their teams played each other 3 out of 4 years for the NBA title. We think we want to see parity because it sounds good and it feels fair. But, in truth, you want to see the most famous teams, at a high level. For empirical proof, here are the ratings from the last few Finals (courtesy of Wikipedia's page for NBA television ratings, with a quick synopsis of the match-up)
2008 NBA Finals
The 2008 NBA Finals featured the Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics renewing their historic rivalry with their first meeting since 1987. With this, the ratings had great improvement from the previous year's Finals. The six-game series garnered a 9.3 rating and an average of 14.9 million viewers, a 50% increase from 2007 and the highest Finals numbers since 2004. The series-clinching Game 6 finished with a 10.7 rating and drew 16.9 million viewers.
2010 NBA FinalsThe 2010 NBA Finals featured a rematch of 2008 with a renewal of the classic rivalry between the Lakers and Celtics and proved to be a smash hit in the ratings. With the historic rivalry between the two most successful teams in the league being the marquee matchup once again and the Finals going seven games for the first time since 2005, the series achieved a 10.6 rating and an average of 18.1 million viewers, the highest numbers since 2004. This was a 26% increase from 2009 and a 14% increase from 2008, the last time the Lakers and the Celtics met.The deciding Game 7 garnered an 15.6 rating and a tally of 28.2 million viewers, making it the most-watched NBA game since Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, which had a 22.3 rating and drew 72 million viewers.In addition, the seventh game bested the previous Game 7 in 2005 by 31%. Game 7 is as of now the most-watched NBA game in ABC's current eight-season run with the league.
(Me again) You would think the 2010 ratings would be lower since it was a rematch of teams the public just saw. But, the numbers simply don't align itself with what parity would bring.
2011 NBA Finals
The 2011 NBA Finals, a rematch of 2006, featured, arguably, pro sports' most scrutinized team -- the 2011 Miami Heat -- against the Dallas Mavericks. The six-game series, which had better ratings for games 1, 3, and 5 (as compared to 2010), would drop slightly from that Final, with a 10.2 rating. The highest-ranked game, Game 6, registered a 13.3 rating and is now the third-most watched game in modern NBA on ABC history. The series is the second consecutive Finals to reach double-digits, and the third in the ABC era to do so.(Me again) To tie this argument into a neat little bow, the lowest ratings in recent Finals history was 2003 (San Antonio vs. New Jersey) and 2005 (Detroit vs. San Antonio). Yay! Parity!
Bringing this back to Chris Paul, he would have brought me back to the NBA for Laker games. I, as a casual fan, would have liked to see him play with Kobe Bryant. Every Laker game would have been appointment TV. We have a recent example of this with the Miami Heat just last year. Fans tuned in, in great numbers, to hate the Heat last year. I watched each game of the Finals last year, just to cheer for Dallas to beat them. But, if the preceding series went differently, the NBA Finals would have been the Chicago Bulls vs. Oklahoma City. We know that match-up would have drawn less viewers.
In truth, you simply need a team to wear the "black hat" when you're watching sports. You need a villain and you need antipathy for one of the teams. With parity, there are less villains, less great teams, less big rivalries, and eventually less interest from the casual fan. The talent is spread around more evenly, but there are fewer teams you HAVE to see.
So, put in me the camp with people who are sad Chris Paul didn't go to Lakers. The way it looked on Twitter, it's a small camp. From what I saw, he may still get to go to an already good team (perhaps the Celtics). I hope he does. If he doesn't, I guess I'll just cheer against the Heat again this year and probably for not much else.
(Footnote from today, 1/27)
- The Chris Paul saga turned out pretty well for neutrals like me. He ended up going to the Clippers and gave a shot in the arm to the Clippers-Lakers rivalry. Just two nights ago, there was a fiery match-up (for a regular season NBA game) involving the 2 teams. (Game details are listed here, pic from the game shown above)
 |
| Why We Can't Wait For The Rematch |
See you soon,
James
No comments:
Post a Comment