From Tip-Off to Turn-Off: What’s Behind the NBA Ratings Decline?

Daniel Waddleton

Dec 23, 2024

---

EVERY NBA REGULAR season seems to have a defining debate, a recurring question that unites fans across the league in spirited arguments to, let’s be honest, help pass the time until the playoffs arrive.

Take last season, for instance. The hot topic was the 65-game minimum for end-of-season awards. Was it the right move, or was it too harsh and leading to injuries? And who could forget the year before, when Joel Embiid and Nikola Jokic were locked in a fierce MVP race? Fans and media members spent hours on end debating how much weight advanced stats should hold and if the MVP should be "decided by a computer".

This season however, we’ve stumbled onto something that feels bigger -- NBA ratings. The question of “Why are ratings down?” has consumed the league discourse. Is the quality of games to blame? What can the league do to fix this? How can we make both players and fans care more about the regular season?

I have some thoughts, and I organized this piece into what I believe are the key ideas regarding the situation, and conclude with some realistic changes the league could make.

. . .

Is the Quality of Games Really Declining, or Is Nostalgia a Drug?

I often see people reminiscing about the 2014 San Antonio Spurs and asking why teams don’t play basketball like that anymore. The same voices that often criticize this current iteration of the Boston Celtics for “breaking” the game of basketball.

But here’s my question: aren’t the Celtics just the natural progression of those Spurs teams? The Celtics five-out, drive-and-kick offensive style is built on unselfish play, where everyone on the floor can shoot, handle the ball, and make smart decisions. It’s objectively one of the most team-oriented play styles we see in the league today.

Sure, the extra pass now typically leads to a kick-out three rather than a Boris Diaw behind-the-back feed to a cutter, but why does that make it less beautiful? While the volume of three-point attempts in today’s game can be excessive at times, when I'm watching a team like Boston I don't feel like I'm watching bad basketball. Their ball movement and offensive cohesion remind me of how the Spurs used dismantled teams in the mid 2010's, but just with a modern basketball spin on the operation.

I think the main issue with today’s game isn’t the teams like Boston, but rather how inferior teams can use the three point "math battle" as a crutch to stay competitive against superior opponents.

But here’s the thing: every sport has regular season games that are a drag. That’s why not every team makes the playoffs. The purpose of the regular season is to separate the contenders from the lottery teams, setting the stage for meaningful games where teams worthy of facing juggernauts like Boston can do so in ways that go beyond simply exploiting three-point math.

When Boston faces a team like Milwaukee or Cleveland in the postseason, those teams will play offensive styles that are not similar, and it will make for really entertaining chess matches between opponents.

I think the notion that “everybody plays the same” in today’s NBA is simply not true. This perception likely stems from two key factors. First, as I mentioned earlier, there are nights when inferior teams resort to jacking up threes just to keep pace with better opponents. These games can feel repetitive and uninspired, giving the illusion that every team is playing the same way.

Second, the idea comes from the sheer skill level of modern players. In the so-called "good old days" most lineups only had one or two true shot creators on the floor at any given time. Many players were one-dimensional, some a complete zero on offense, and teams had to adapt their style around those few players who could actually handle the ball and create shots for the offense.

Today, that dynamic has changed. While teams still tailor their playstyle to stars, the supporting casts have evolved. Most of the role players in today's game are now shooters, and many can also get into second side offensive creation throughout a possession. The court mapping is also the best it's ever been, making it so difficult to stop the leagues stars without allowing open three's or dunks to others.

The increased volume of three-pointers isn’t just the result of “chuck and luck”; it's a product of stars collapsing defenses, and then kicking it out to “role-players” who now hit 40% of their threes, while also having the ability to attack a closeout and get an even better shot for the next role player who’s hitting his threes at a 35% clip.

The diversity in playstyles isn’t gone, it’s just expressed differently. Teams still play to their strengths, but in an era where everyone on the floor is so skilled, the game has naturally evolved to reflect the talents of its players. Possessions can seem to end in the same result because of this skill all over the court, but the processes to getting there vary from team to team.

. . .

How Much of the Negativity Stems from Those Who Cover the Sport?

We probably should’ve started here, because in all honesty, nothing frustrates me more about this topic than this.

Imagine you’re heading to a fair just a couple of blocks away. But as you’re walking, every single person you pass on the way is coming back, telling you how much it sucks. How long would it take before you start second-guessing your decision and turn around to head back home? Or just show up for a couple minutes with the sole purpose of seeing the disaster for yourself? That’s exactly what it feels like getting ready to watch an NBA game on TNT or ESPN during the week.

Throughout the day, I’ll scroll through Twitter and see accounts tweeting about how the games are boring, or clips of former players and media talking heads ranting about how the league needs to “fix” its product. Then, when I turn on the pregame show, the negativity continues. Analysts complain about too many threes, lazy defensive efforts, or how the stars don’t care enough on a nightly basis. By the time the actual game starts, I couldn’t be less excited, I’ve just been told all day that what I’m about to watch is going to be awful.

Even worse, once you start watching, your no longer focusing on the beauty and nuance of the game. You're not appreciating the job of an elite rim protector anchoring a defense, or marveling at a head coaches tactical in-game adjustment that flips the momentum. Instead, you find yourself looking for the bad three-point shot in transition or the lazy defensive effort on a baseline drive. It’s as if the negativity all day has rewired peoples brain to focus only on what’s wrong, instead of what’s great.

For example, rather than the pregame show priming you for the tactical chess match of how the Mavericks might counter the Celtics putting Tatum on their center to switch their bread and butter Luka + Center pick-and-rolls, they are bracing you for a game where the teams will take too many threes, and telling you how Tatum's legacy is on the line if he can't outplay his own teammate.

There are plenty of reasons why the NFL is more popular than the NBA, but this is definitely part of it. I realized this last week while watching ESPN’s pregame coverage of Monday Night Football. The crew looked like they were having an absolute blast -- discussing tactical matchups within the game and reacting to highlights from Sunday’s action.

It was fun, informative, and it actually made me tune in to a game I hadn’t even planned on watching. They weren’t complaining about how two-high safety looks are “ruining the sport” because there are fewer deep shots, or debating if Kirk Cousins legacy was on the line that night. Instead, they focused on the excitement of the game, and it was contagious.

Why can’t we try to do the same with basketball? Let’s push the NBA in a positive light, because there’s so much to love about this sport. If we’re going to be critical of players, let it be from a tactical standpoint, not just lazy takes about effort or commitment. Sure, when Luka has a disastrous effort performance like Game 3 of the Finals, Brian Windhorst or any analyst has every right to light him up. But let’s not make that the default narrative every night.

. . .

Beyond the Product and Media, What’s Really Driving the Ratings Decline?

We don't live in 1998 anymore, so we shouldn't expect the same viewership as we did in 1998. In a world now dominated by entertainment platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, Netflix, Hulu, etc., there are countless ways to consume content. There's now a lot more ways somebody can spend their nights that don't include watching live sports, and those sports are easier then ever to follow without actually watching the games.

Missed the big game? No problem. Watch the highlights on your phone the next morning, or even 15 minutes after the game ends if you so choose. This has fundamentally changed how we engage with live sporting events, including NBA games. The idea of people sitting down on a Wednesday night to watch the “big game” just doesn’t hold the same cultural weight it once did.

Unless something extraordinary happens -- like Caitlin Clark turning women's basketball into the most compelling story in sports -- many more people then before are going to opt out of watching live games, choosing instead to consume highlights and updates on their own time. Sure, football has been somewhat immune to this issue, but football is an anomaly. No sport, or form of entertainment for that matter, will ever replicate the NFL’s power on linear television.

And while the NBA's live ratings might be down, the league itself is far from struggling. The NBA has a massive global following, and its athletes are some of the most popular figures in sports. No American sports league has more social media engagement then the NBA does.

Social media is part of the equation, it’s not just about the quality of games or the perceived lack of significance in the regular season. People can now follow the league closely without ever watching a live game.

And let’s not forget: Adam Silver just secured a $76 billion (with a B) media rights deal. Clearly, television and streaming companies see the NBA’s value and understand that the interest in the league is as strong as ever. The real challenge now is figuring out how to reel people back into watching games live.

. . .

An Important Question: Who’s the Next Face of the League?

This is the one real issue the league has. The NBA can function without a singular “face” of the league, but it’s hard to deny that its golden eras have always been defined by one -- or even multiple -- iconic faces.

These superstars weren’t just incredible players; they were cultural icons, symbols of the leagues identity during their time. From Magic and Bird revitalizing the league in the ’80s, to Michael Jordan elevating it to global dominance in the ’90s, to LeBron James and Stephen Curry carrying the torch to the modern era, the NBA has always thrived when its stars were also its faces.

So when discussing the NBA’s ratings issue, it’s almost inevitable that the conversation turns to the topic of the leagues next face. And it’s a fair question.

LeBron James and Stephen Curry, still the two most popular players in the league, are on the tail end of their careers. Meanwhile, the top four players in my opinion -- Nikola Jokic, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Luka Doncic, and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander -- are all non-American. Even Victor Wembanyama, who is the most compelling young player in basketball, hasn’t yet resonated with American audiences in the way the league likely hoped with him being so unique.

Now, is it a requirement that the face of the league be American? No. But historically, there’s no precedent for it not being the case. For whatever reason, American sports fans tend to resonate more with homegrown talent, especially in basketball.

There’s also, in my opinion, a subconscious resistance to international players dominating a sport many view as inherently “ours". I'm not sure it was a complete coincidence that there seemed to be a ton of added interest to this years USA Basketball Olympic run after hearing all year that the world is "catching up to America in basketball".

So, let’s talk about American stars. Ja Morant seemed poised to take the mantle at one point, before off-court behavior derailed his momentum. Zion Williamson, touted as the next LeBron when he entered the league, never appeared to be able to live up to it once he took the floor.

I actually predicted during the 2021 Finals that Anthony Edwards would become the face of the league someday. While he looked the part at times last season, there are challenges. Can he truly ascend to that status while playing in a market like Minnesota? Also during his Team USA stint may predicted a great collection of performances could ascend him to heir apparent to James and Curry, but he wasn't able to play up to it on the floor.

Maybe Cooper Flagg or AJ Dybantsa will eventually rise to the occasion, but for now, the NBA has been left without a definitive future face. As the league moves into it's new TV deal, finding that next superstar who can captivate audiences and bring in the viewership numbers will be crucial.

The next face of the league won’t just represent its deep talent pool, but will also play a key role in shaping its cultural relevance and viewership in the years to come.

. . .

A Realistic but Fun Blueprint to Fix the Regular Season

Let's start here, the easiest way to fix the NBA season is just simply to reduce the games. But no matter what happens, we know the NBA will never reduce the number of games. The leagues biggest advantage over football is the sheer volume of inventory they have.

Neither the league nor its owners are going to willingly forgo the significant revenue they’d lose by cutting games, even if doing so would undeniably improve the quality of the product and increase interest in the regular season. It’s an unfortunate reality: the business side will always outweigh the potential benefits for the sport itself.

So what’s some fun ways they can fix the season without a trim? And without getting rid of corner threes, because that's not going anywhere either.

1. Scrap the Play-In Tournament

   1. The play-in tournament needs to go. If the league refuses to cut 12-16 games from the schedule due to monetary reasons, fine. But at least take a small pay cut and eliminate the play-in. It’s like a max player taking $2 million less to keep their team under the second apron, nobody wants to do it but it's a small price to pay for a big return on investment.

      
      

   2. With the play-in, 20 of the 30 teams make it to postseason play, which is ridiculous. It drastically lowers the stakes of regular season games. Every 76ers game right now would become five times more interesting if they needed a top-eight seed to make the postseason. The Western Conference battle among teams from 5-12 in the current standings would become far more intense if only three of them advanced instead of five.

      
      

   3. I was a supporter of the play-in when it launched, and at the time, it was fun and exciting. But now, it’s time to move on. If we want both players and fans to care more about the regular season from November to March, the play-in tournament has to go.

      
      

2. Start the Season on or Near Christmas

   1. There’s clear proof of concept that starting the NBA season on Christmas works. The last two times the league did this (lockout and post-bubble), ratings increased throughout the season. Avoiding direct competition with football in the fall while stretching the season into the sports-deprived summer months makes sense on every level.

      
      

   2. The NBA has a chance to dominate the summer sports calendar. After the NBA and NHL Finals end in June, there’s a lull in the sports world until late August. Baseball has its own struggles, and from experience as a Mets fan, I don’t fully engage until the trade deadline passes. The NBA could own this window by moving its schedule back and filling that gap with its best product.

      
      

   3. Starting on Christmas would also add extra excitement to the holiday games. If Christmas Day is the first or second time fans get to see these teams, it becomes more of a marquee event. Even if the NFL has encroached on the holiday, the NBA can still make it basically their season opener and generate buzz.

      
      

3. Give Higher Seeds Five Home Games

   1. Unlike the other ideas, I’m not sure the NBA would actually implement this, but I think it's a great idea. If you want the regular season to matter, make being the higher seed much more valuable. In the NFL, teams rarely rest players if they can improve their playoff seeding -- even if they have already clinched the postseason -- because they know the value of home-field. The NBA could do the same.

      
      

   2. Imagine a playoff series where the higher seed gets two home games, goes on the road for two, and then returns for the final three games at home. It would make seeding a real priority and raise the stakes of every regular-season game for these teams.

      
      

   3. This change would also give fans a reason to care more about the standings. It’s a bold move, but one that could bring a lot of excitement to the regular season.