NBA Competition Committee looking at how can parity be achieved between offense & defense in today's game

[Stratmaster]

Shrinking the rim is an interesting idea, but I think you'd hurt mid range shots more than 3s. A smaller rim will hurt lower arcing shots more than higher arcing shots. Generally 3s have more arc on them.

Either way, in the end, if you want to change the offensive styles, you need to change the value proposition of different shots, but in the end, in this day of analytics, it's probably really hard to create a game that has wildly divergent but similarly successful strategies.

As humans, we're so advanced now an analytical breakdowns that whatever meta emerges, teams will copy it. Now, if you can find a meta that's more entertaining to fans, go for it.

What about instead of shrinking the rim size, increase the ball size from 29.5 to either 30.0 or 30.5? I have no idea how viable this would be, but the degree of difficulty sharply increases from a women's ball (28.5) to a men's ball, so I would think increasing the men's ball size (haha) would increase the difficulty of making shots.

That in combination with altering how the game is called could have a big effect. Experiment with it in the G League or whatever before doing it in the NBA. I'm just spitballing here.

Fundamentally, that's going to have the same impact as shrinking the rim slightly in terms of margins of error and hurt mid range shots more than 3s for the same reasons.

I think you just need to change the value proposition, there are a few ways to do it IMO:

1: Just change the distance of the 3 point line and remove the corner 3 by making the 3 point line just hit out of bounds (would need to change it's arc slightly). This would make the amount of 3 point space much smaller and remove the highest percentage 3s, and make it much easier to rotate, and make it much easier to play a couple non shooters (probably can't use more than 3 effectively anyway at one time).

2: Change the ratio of the value of the shot to make it more inline with other shots. If you made it about 2.5, it's probably pretty close to the same PPP as a mid range shot or a post up.

I think either of those changes would be tough for fans to get behind, and again, I don't think the three point shooting is really a problem for the league, just for the talking heads, and that both these changes, while fixing this problem, would be terrible for the league.

I think 2 is way to radical.

I think the first option would be welcomed by most. All you do is start the 3 point line right smack in the corner where the baseline and sideline meet. Extend it whatever distance the experts think is appropriate at is apex (likely 1 to 2 feet).

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

I think the first option would be welcomed by most. All you do is start the 3 point line right smack in the corner where the baseline and sideline meet. Extend it whatever distance the experts think is appropriate at is apex (likely 1 to 2 feet).

The 2nd option is actually far more radical from a game play perspective. It would dramatically change the game from every other level of basketball to the NBA. The corner 3 would be an elite shot in every other league in the world except the NBA. All the training you do in HS/NCAA would be to learn habits you have to unlearn at the NBA level.

Rebalancing the points allocated to adapt for skill level is a less impactful change to the way the game is played IMO, but fans probably absolutely hate decimal scoring, so I think it would go over very poorly.

The things that might actually help that are probably not quite so jarring:
1: Widen the court by 4 feet, change the arc of the 3 point circle, remove the break, and make all 3s the same distance and 2 feet further out. Problem is that all stadiums might need to remove 1 row of seats to make this happen, of their most profitable seats.

2: Remove defensive 3 seconds. This would give the defense way more chance, but I suspect, you'd see a dominant defense develop where it's a 4 man perimeter zone with a shot blocker sitting in the middle of the paint. This might actually create far fewer defensive options / schemes than we have today and make the game better balanced but more boring.

In the end, whenever I post these things I'll land on the point that I think it's really not a problem and wouldn't try to solve it. Of these less aggressive solutions, #1 is probably my favorite. Even if you can just extend the court by 2 feet, and change the arc of the three point line slightly so there is no below the break three and they're all the same distance but that distance doesn't change, I'd think that is the change that impacts the game the least relative to other levels of play, but probably drops the the three point shooting percentage of the league by 2%.

[Stratmaster]

I think the first option would be welcomed by most. All you do is start the 3 point line right smack in the corner where the baseline and sideline meet. Extend it whatever distance the experts think is appropriate at is apex (likely 1 to 2 feet).

The 2nd option is actually far more radical from a game play perspective. It would dramatically change the game from every other level of basketball to the NBA. The corner 3 would be an elite shot in every other league in the world except the NBA. All the training you do in HS/NCAA would be to learn habits you have to unlearn at the NBA level.

Rebalancing the points allocated to adapt for skill level is a less impactful change to the way the game is played IMO, but fans probably absolutely hate decimal scoring, so I think it would go over very poorly.

The things that might actually help that are probably not quite so jarring:
1: Widen the court by 4 feet, change the arc of the 3 point circle, remove the break, and make all 3s the same distance and 2 feet further out. Problem is that all stadiums might need to remove 1 row of seats to make this happen, of their most profitable seats.

2: Remove defensive 3 seconds. This would give the defense way more chance, but I suspect, you'd see a dominant defense develop where it's a 4 man perimeter zone with a shot blocker sitting in the middle of the paint. This might actually create far fewer defensive options / schemes than we have today and make the game better balanced but more boring.

In the end, whenever I post these things I'll land on the point that I think it's really not a problem and wouldn't try to solve it. Of these less aggressive solutions, #1 is probably my favorite. Even if you can just extend the court by 2 feet, and change the arc of the three point line slightly so there is no below the break three and they're all the same distance but that distance doesn't change, I'd think that is the change that impacts the game the least relative to other levels of play, but probably drops the the three point shooting percentage of the league by 2%.

I have to disagree. The 3 point distance is already different in college than in the NBA, and if the corner 3 change is that big an issue the NCAA would quickly follow suit in running it right into the corner. They could do that and still keep the apex the same distance.

Giving a portion of a point just seems silly, complicated and cheesy to me. But that is just IMHO of course.

Extending the court in any direction would be a huge and radical change, as well as counterproductive. It is just that much more space a defense would have to guard.

I agree that eliminating 3 seconds would hurt the game, making it just as boring but in a different way.

You may not think it is a problem. But hundreds of thousands of other fans do. I am one of them. I am at the point where I don't bother watching any basketball other than the Bulls, snippets of the conference Finals, and the Finals. I have no desire to watch 2 teams I have no personal stake in launch 3 point shots 75+ times a game. The league obviously is seeing disinterest, or they wouldn't be publicly looking into the matter. And all of this is happening during a time where availability and prevalence of legal gambling is at an all-time high, which was supposed to stoke more interest.

[dougthonus]

I have to disagree. The 3 point distance is already different in college than in the NBA, and if the corner 3 change is that big an issue the NCAA would quickly follow suit in running it right into the corner. They could do that and still keep the apex the same distance.

I don't think the distance matters. Adding distance is effectively players just getting a bit better at the same thing. Removing the corner 3 isn't that. It's fundamentally changing the way the game is played by making the most valuable space on the floor, the least valuable space. This means all schemes on both offense and defense will be fundamentally different in terms of valuable shots, where you rotate, and where you go.

Why do you think the NCAA would follow suit? They don't seem to follow suit on NBA changes now, nor do they seem to think the same problem exists. Probably because there just aren't enough talented players in the NCAA to ruin to the same problem as the NBA and there are enough other rule differences that it just isn't the same situation.

Extending the court in any direction would be a huge and radical change, as well as counterproductive. It is just that much more space a defense would have to guard.

I agree, it could work out that way. It would make it harder to defend the corner 3 and recover to the basket for help in addition to making the corner 3 harder to hit and less important to defend. It's possible those things balance out and the net impact is relatively little.

You may not think it is a problem. But hundreds of thousands of other fans do. I am one of them. I am at the point where I don't bother watching any basketball other than the Bulls, snippets of the conference Finals, and the Finals.

Could be, but you are one person. I'd also guess that the fact your favorite team isn't that interesting and your favorite player on that teams is presently public enemy #1 to most of its fanbase and is out for the year also has a greater influence on your watching than how many 3s the team shoots, but I could be wrong, maybe if the Bulls were the #1 seed right now you'd still not want to bother.

The league obviously is seeing disinterest, or they wouldn't be publicly looking into the matter. And all of this is happening during a time where availability and prevalence of legal gambling is at an all-time high, which was supposed to stoke more interest.

Lots of things people think are a problem aren't really a problem, because people are really bad at figuring out the true root cause of problems. Most of the people doing the public discussing this as a problem and are talking heads on sports radio and not data scientists. They aren't using any rational causes or comparisons and mostly comparing just to their experience doing the same thing years ago.

If you look at the real root causes of the numbers crunch there are many of them, but it's extraordinarily unlikely that a meaningful one is too many 3s / too much offense.

In short, the NBA does well when there is an interesting dynasty that people want to win: Huge ratings climbs followed by dips after Bulls and Warriors dynasties hit full stride then broke up.

The NBA has a greater percentage of primetime audience than it did in the past of similar non dynasty periods, but that audience is half the size as it was 20 years ago, so the total number is smaller due to cord cutting and changes in life style (younger generations do not watch TV and instead watch social media)

Those two things combined probably explain 95%+ of what is going on with ratings if you want to dive into the numbers. In the last 10 years people watch 50% less television, literally 120M people were watching primetime TV and now it's 60M and the NBA has a larger percentage share of that 60M than it did of that 120M.

Young people don't watch TV anymore, their viewing has shifted to social media highlights and not full games. That's the big change. People don't want to consume the full product as much as they want highlights of the best moments. Even they enjoy consuming analysis about the product more than the product itself which is interesting.

[ScrantonBulls]

Shrinking the three is interesting. From an effectiveness standpoint, I think it's a really good idea. But there are some big issues.

- it's such a big change that it will be difficult to compare records before and after it. Kind of like making a three point 4 points and a two pointer 3 points.
- it's easy for the league to implement it, but costly for everybody else. All existing hoops will no longer be regulation. That's a costly expense for people that are poor.

[Ccwatercraft]

I would like two things to happen. First, allow a little more handchecking inside the 3-point line. Second, call more offensive fouls on players for initiating contact while shooting and driving to the basket.

The offensive player initiating contact issue drives me nuts... that alone would change things and just seems like an interpretation of the rule issue.

[Stratmaster]

I have to disagree. The 3 point distance is already different in college than in the NBA, and if the corner 3 change is that big an issue the NCAA would quickly follow suit in running it right into the corner. They could do that and still keep the apex the same distance.

I don't think the distance matters. Adding distance is effectively players just getting a bit better at the same thing. Removing the corner 3 isn't that. It's fundamentally changing the way the game is played by making the most valuable space on the floor, the least valuable space. This means all schemes on both offense and defense will be fundamentally different in terms of valuable shots, where you rotate, and where you go.

Why do you think the NCAA would follow suit? They don't seem to follow suit on NBA changes now, nor do they seem to think the same problem exists. Probably because there just aren't enough talented players in the NCAA to ruin to the same problem as the NBA and there are enough other rule differences that it just isn't the same situation.

Extending the court in any direction would be a huge and radical change, as well as counterproductive. It is just that much more space a defense would have to guard.

I agree, it could work out that way. It would make it harder to defend the corner 3 and recover to the basket for help in addition to making the corner 3 harder to hit and less important to defend. It's possible those things balance out and the net impact is relatively little.

You may not think it is a problem. But hundreds of thousands of other fans do. I am one of them. I am at the point where I don't bother watching any basketball other than the Bulls, snippets of the conference Finals, and the Finals.

Could be, but you are one person. I'd also guess that the fact your favorite team isn't that interesting and your favorite player on that teams is presently public enemy #1 to most of its fanbase and is out for the year also has a greater influence on your watching than how many 3s the team shoots, but I could be wrong, maybe if the Bulls were the #1 seed right now you'd still not want to bother.

The league obviously is seeing disinterest, or they wouldn't be publicly looking into the matter. And all of this is happening during a time where availability and prevalence of legal gambling is at an all-time high, which was supposed to stoke more interest.

Lots of things people think are a problem aren't really a problem, because people are really bad at figuring out the true root cause of problems. Most of the people doing the public discussing this as a problem and are talking heads on sports radio and not data scientists. They aren't using any rational causes or comparisons and mostly comparing just to their experience doing the same thing years ago.

If you look at the real root causes of the numbers crunch there are many of them, but it's extraordinarily unlikely that a meaningful one is too many 3s / too much offense.

In short, the NBA does well when there is an interesting dynasty that people want to win: Huge ratings climbs followed by dips after Bulls and Warriors dynasties hit full stride then broke up.

The NBA has a greater percentage of primetime audience than it did in the past of similar non dynasty periods, but that audience is half the size as it was 20 years ago, so the total number is smaller due to cord cutting and changes in life style (younger generations do not watch TV and instead watch social media)

Those two things combined probably explain 95%+ of what is going on with ratings if you want to dive into the numbers. In the last 10 years people watch 50% less television, literally 120M people were watching primetime TV and now it's 60M and the NBA has a larger percentage share of that 60M than it did of that 120M.

Young people don't watch TV anymore, their viewing has shifted to social media highlights and not full games. That's the big change. People don't want to consume the full product as much as they want highlights of the best moments. Even they enjoy consuming analysis about the product more than the product itself which is interesting.

Wait. You don't think extending the overall distance would matter. It would just mean players getting a little bit better. But the corner 3 is the most valuable spot on the court because...it is the shortest distance 3. And extending the width 2 feet would make it tougher because...it is longer. The 3 point line is 1'9" longer at the APEX than it is in the corner and you acknowledge the huge difference that makes. But extending it 1'9" at the Apex wouldn't have much effect? If distance is what makes the corner 3 more valuable, just using general logic and math, wouldn't you think that difficulty would increase exponentially as you add more distance to the longest point?None of what you are saying there makes any sense.

As far as the NCAA, I said if they felt it was causing a problem they would change it. Like they did after 7 seasons of seeing the NBA with the 3 point shot, or after they saw the NBA add the shot clock for 30 seasons.

Yes, as I said, hundreds of thousands of fans think the excessive 3 point shooting and scoring is an issue, and I am one of them. Thank you for pointing out my quantity. My wife actually thinks I am 2 people. I will share your assessment with her.

As far as my favorite player not playing, and my team not being interesting, re-read what I said. I said the ONLY games I watch are the Bulls, snippets of the conference Finals, and the Finals. There was a day when if an NBA playoff game was on, I was watching it. If the Bulls weren't on, I was watching some other game. I find the Bulls interesting because I have a stake in them. I used to find the NBA as a whole interesting. Remember. I'm the guy who thinks the Bulls are a real playoff team if they had a real head coach, and I still watch every Bulls game. Of course, the Bulls don't shoot near as many 3's as some teams. I think you would find Bulls games are in the lower 3rd of the league in total points scored by both teams.

Data scientists have no say in any of this. The problem isn't the number of points scored, it is the way they are being scored. It is simply a bi-product that correcting the way the points are scored to make the product better would likely reduce the total points scored. As one NBA player said, no one is looking to move the game back to to under 100 points per team scoring. The problem and solution isn't to scientifically assess what percentage of a point each shot is ACTUALLY worth based on difficulty and then mathematically adjust each spot on the floor. Hey, we can assign 1 point for under the basket, 1.5 for free throw line distance, 2.0 for the top of the key distance and 2.5 for 3 point distance. YES. That will really draw the fans! The issue is making the game better to watch, not pleasing the fairness zealots.

It is interesting that the league, the talking heads, the players, and a huge percentage of fans all think this is becoming an issue. But you don't. So that means "Lots of things people think are a problem aren't really a problem, because people are really bad at figuring out the true root cause of problems." To me, it appears you are having trouble understanding what the problem all of those people are discussing is. It isn't number crunching the total number of points. It's the eye test.

[dougthonus]

Wait. You don't think extending the overall distance would matter. It would just mean players getting a little bit better. But the corner 3 is the most valuable spot on the court because...it is the shortest distance 3. And extending the width 2 feet would make it tougher because...it is longer. The 3 point line is 1'9" longer at the APEX than it is in the corner and you acknowledge the huge difference that makes. But extending it 1'9" at the Apex wouldn't have much effect? If distance is what makes the corner 3 more valuable, just using general logic and math, wouldn't you think that difficulty would increase exponentially as you add more distance to the longest point?None of what you are saying there makes any sense.

I think it would make a difference, the point is to make a difference. I'm saying it wouldn't fundamentally shift the style of the game. It would still need to be defended just like the regular 3 still needs to be defended. It doesn't fundamentally make the spot worthless (like removing it would), it just makes it the same value as the rest of the floor. In terms of schemes, this would create a much more subtle shift than removing it.

Compared to other lower level leagues, in HS the break doesn't even exist, and in college the break only saves you about 6 inches vs 21 inches in the NBA, so removing the break actually brings you closer to the college game and HS game rather than further away. Replacing the break with a smooth arc would bring you closer to those leagues rather than further away, making the break go out of bounds and removing the shot is a much larger shift in terms of style of play.

As far as the NCAA, I said if they felt it was causing a problem they would change it. Like they did after 7 seasons of seeing the NBA with the 3 point shot, or after they saw the NBA add the shot clock for 30 seasons.

Sure, maybe. I mean they have huge gaps between the NBA game now (different line length, longer shot clock, 1&1 for penalties, different foul rules, etc..). I wouldn't count on them making this change, but you never know. I agree if fans loved the change, the NCAA would probably follow suit if they thought it would increase popularity. I really doubt that would be the outcome that fans would love this change and it would increase popularity, but that's based on the fact that I think fans hate almost all major changes initially.

Data scientists have no say in any of this. The problem isn't the number of points scored, it is the way they are being scored. It is simply a bi-product that correcting the way the points are scored to make the product better would likely reduce the total points scored. As one NBA player said, no one is looking to move the game back to to under 100 points per team scoring. The problem and solution isn't to scientifically assess what percentage of a point each shot is ACTUALLY worth based on difficulty and then mathematically adjust each spot on the floor. Hey, we can assign 1 point for under the basket, 1.5 for free throw line distance, 2.0 for the top of the key distance and 2.5 for 3 point distance. YES. That will really draw the fans! The issue is making the game better to watch, not pleasing the fairness zealots.

You are starting with the assumption that the game isn't pleasing to watch as the cause for people watching less games. A data scientist would go in and evaluate whether that is true. I gave you plenty of reasons which are backed by data why that probably isn't true, and the assumption is put forward by a largely loud, biased crowd with a big voice in the industry that isn't looking at the problem holistically at all.

You've conveniently not spoken to any of the alternative points I raised about why viewership is stable and not setting records.

It is interesting that the league, the talking heads, the players, and a huge percentage of fans all think this is becoming an issue. But you don't. So that means "Lots of things people think are a problem aren't really a problem, because people are really bad at figuring out the true root cause of problems." To me, it appears you are having trouble understanding what the problem all of those people are discussing is. It isn't number crunching the total number of points. It's the eye test.

Not really, the "lots of people" talking about this aren't the people they are losing. They are losing the casual fans, and you can look at lots of data trends to see why. Generally, people are moving away from TV and generally people have way more interest when there is an interesting dynasty.

It'd be like trying to change some random golf rule to fix the rating decline when Tiger Woods isn't playing and a bunch of passionate golf fans arguing about the size of the greens or thickness of the grass or reducing club head size or whatever else might impact golf, but instead, there was a dynamic thing drawing interest to the game that is gone and those shifts in style to the game won't bring people back, because the people you lost weren't ones who cared deeply about the game, they were the ones who just found it an interesting moment in time and wanted to watch absolute greatness.

That's what happened when the Warriors vs LeBron ended, and it ended in an era where TV watching in general rapidly declined, again 1 in 2 people that would watch TV are no longer watching TV, and the NBA holds a greater percentage of the people left than it did 10 years ago. It's been incredibly durable in the face of overall TV watching declining.

There's really no evidence that too many threes is the root cause of any of the numbers shifting and a mountain of evidence that it isn't.

[Stratmaster]

I'm going to put a side note in about the changes in lottery odds, tanking rules, and the play-in tournament because I don't think it deserves a thread and the rules committee thread seems like a good place.

In 2020-2021 (first play-in season) there were 15 teams with a .500 record or better. By 21-22 it was 18. If the Bulls make .500 this season there will be 19 (possibly 20 if Houston catches .500) teams, as there was 19 last season.

Prior to the play-in (19-20) there were 13. In 18-19 There were 16.

So when 16 teams qualified for post-season play, there were 13 to 16 with a "winning" record. Now that 20 can qualify, it looks like 15-20 have a winning record, with 19-20 being the trend. Need a much deeper dive but at first glance the play-in tournament we all mock, combined with the tanking rules, seem to have accomplished their goal.

[dougthonus]

I'm going to put a side note in about the changes in lottery odds, tanking rules, and the play-in tournament because I don't think it deserves a thread and the rules committee thread seems like a good place.

In 2020-2021 (first play-in season) there were 15 teams with a .500 record or better. By 21-22 it was 18. If the Bulls make .500 this season there will be 19 (possibly 20 if Houston catches .500) teams, as there was 19 last season.

Prior to the play-in (19-20) there were 13. In 18-19 There were 16.

So when 16 teams qualified for post-season play, there were 13 to 16 with a "winning" record. Now that 20 can qualify, it looks like 15-20 have a winning record, with 19-20 being the trend. Need a much deeper dive but at first glance the play-in tournament we all mock, combined with the tanking rules, seem to have accomplished their goal.

My thought was that if 20 teams are .500 or better when the league has to average .500 overall, that the bottom of the league is even worse and less competitive to give the top of the league even more wins. In a perfectly balanced world you should have 14-16 teams that are .500 or better in 30 team league (half better than average / half below, maybe a couple at absolute average).

But thinking it through a bit more, I think there are two possible causes:
The bottom 10 left are so much worse that they left more wins for the top 20 than they did in the past
In the top half, the best teams aren't the best by as big a margin, and so you will have more clumping in the above average teams and less massively dominant teams

Regardless of the reason, I agree with your overall point that I think the in season tournament and play-in tournament have both been good for the league, just adding on some statistical context of the change could be for one of two reasons. I'm not sure there is enough data to say which is going on or to say there is a trend overall that you could point out for sure, but it does seem like you have these teams who can be 9th/10th that are trying harder that would have quit before and the teams that fall out to 11th or 12th probably tried harder for longer before giving up.

[Stratmaster]

Wait. You don't think extending the overall distance would matter. It would just mean players getting a little bit better. But the corner 3 is the most valuable spot on the court because...it is the shortest distance 3. And extending the width 2 feet would make it tougher because...it is longer. The 3 point line is 1'9" longer at the APEX than it is in the corner and you acknowledge the huge difference that makes. But extending it 1'9" at the Apex wouldn't have much effect? If distance is what makes the corner 3 more valuable, just using general logic and math, wouldn't you think that difficulty would increase exponentially as you add more distance to the longest point?None of what you are saying there makes any sense.

I think it would make a difference, the point is to make a difference. I'm saying it wouldn't fundamentally shift the style of the game. It would still need to be defended just like the regular 3 still needs to be defended. It doesn't fundamentally make the spot worthless (like removing it would), it just makes it the same value as the rest of the floor. In terms of schemes, this would create a much more subtle shift than removing it.

Compared to other lower level leagues, in HS the break doesn't even exist, and in college the break only saves you about 6 inches vs 21 inches in the NBA, so removing the break actually brings you closer to the college game and HS game rather than further away. Replacing the break with a smooth arc would bring you closer to those leagues rather than further away, making the break go out of bounds and removing the shot is a much larger shift in terms of style of play.

As far as the NCAA, I said if they felt it was causing a problem they would change it. Like they did after 7 seasons of seeing the NBA with the 3 point shot, or after they saw the NBA add the shot clock for 30 seasons.

Sure, maybe. I mean they have huge gaps between the NBA game now (different line length, longer shot clock, 1&1 for penalties, different foul rules, etc..). I wouldn't count on them making this change, but you never know. I agree if fans loved the change, the NCAA would probably follow suit if they thought it would increase popularity. I really doubt that would be the outcome that fans would love this change and it would increase popularity, but that's based on the fact that I think fans hate almost all major changes initially.

Data scientists have no say in any of this. The problem isn't the number of points scored, it is the way they are being scored. It is simply a bi-product that correcting the way the points are scored to make the product better would likely reduce the total points scored. As one NBA player said, no one is looking to move the game back to to under 100 points per team scoring. The problem and solution isn't to scientifically assess what percentage of a point each shot is ACTUALLY worth based on difficulty and then mathematically adjust each spot on the floor. Hey, we can assign 1 point for under the basket, 1.5 for free throw line distance, 2.0 for the top of the key distance and 2.5 for 3 point distance. YES. That will really draw the fans! The issue is making the game better to watch, not pleasing the fairness zealots.

You are starting with the assumption that the game isn't pleasing to watch as the cause for people watching less games. A data scientist would go in and evaluate whether that is true. I gave you plenty of reasons which are backed by data why that probably isn't true, and the assumption is put forward by a largely loud, biased crowd with a big voice in the industry that isn't looking at the problem holistically at all.

You've conveniently not spoken to any of the alternative points I raised about why viewership is stable and not setting records.

It is interesting that the league, the talking heads, the players, and a huge percentage of fans all think this is becoming an issue. But you don't. So that means "Lots of things people think are a problem aren't really a problem, because people are really bad at figuring out the true root cause of problems." To me, it appears you are having trouble understanding what the problem all of those people are discussing is. It isn't number crunching the total number of points. It's the eye test.

Not really, the "lots of people" talking about this aren't the people they are losing. They are losing the casual fans, and you can look at lots of data trends to see why. Generally, people are moving away from TV and generally people have way more interest when there is an interesting dynasty.

It'd be like trying to change some random golf rule to fix the rating decline when Tiger Woods isn't playing and a bunch of passionate golf fans arguing about the size of the greens or thickness of the grass or reducing club head size or whatever else might impact golf, but instead, there was a dynamic thing drawing interest to the game that is gone and those shifts in style to the game won't bring people back, because the people you lost weren't ones who cared deeply about the game, they were the ones who just found it an interesting moment in time and wanted to watch absolute greatness.

That's what happened when the Warriors vs LeBron ended, and it ended in an era where TV watching in general rapidly declined, again 1 in 2 people that would watch TV are no longer watching TV, and the NBA holds a greater percentage of the people left than it did 10 years ago. It's been incredibly durable in the face of overall TV watching declining.

There's really no evidence that too many threes is the root cause of any of the numbers shifting and a mountain of evidence that it isn't.

I think you mean that 1 in 2 people now stream their television content. They didn't stop watching. You can stream the NBA. the fact that a larger percentage of people still watch the NBA through traditional means is a problem, not a good sign. Your points about dynasty's is certainly well taken. As far as cutting the cord, the league knows how many people are watching through streaming; or at least they should.

[dougthonus]

I think you mean that 1 in 2 people now stream their television content. They didn't stop watching. You can stream the NBA. the fact that a larger percentage of people still watch the NBA through traditional means is a problem, not a good sign. Your points about dynasty's is certainly well taken. As far as cutting the cord, the league knows how many people are watching through streaming; or at least they should.

Depending how you measure it, actual TV watching is in decline. My two kids watch nearly zero TV including streaming, I watch way less TV than I used to, including streaming. Small sample size, and maybe overly personal (just to point out my hypocrisy of accusing you of being overly personal about extrapolating your reasons for watching less basketball to a larger crowd), so it's certainly possible my experience is unique, but from what I have observed around my circles is that everyone watches less TV than they used to.

That said, if you include things like Tik Tok and Youtube and facebook/instagram reels as "TV" then then TV is definitely not in decline, but those short form, user created content has taken a good chunk of market share from professionally produced content.

Linear TV (TV channels) are by far the most in decline. On demand streaming platforms seem to generally be thriving, and are mostly what is replacing linear TV, but people are spending more and more time on short form stuff and social media stuff.

That said, I agree with what I think your point is, that the NBA not having moved away from the affiliate model and into an easily consumable streaming platform is a big problem for it. Most people on this forum would probably pay for a straight NBA streaming platform because we're paying for something far more expensive we don't want. I'd wager this is a cause much larger than style of the game for total viewership if you include streaming.

People don't want to pay for cable just for the NBA. They want to watch their local team with just an NBA package (or for other sports just their package), and the NBA is definitely caught in the cash cow cycle of business where it has to change, but the obvious ways to change is to cannibalize its own revenue but not changing will cannibalize its market share and popularity, and they only have the option to change very 5 years or so when their TV market deals end.

That's a difficult position for the NBA to navigate, which is why I posted in other threads, they're probably hoping for a bailout from Amazon or Apple. Two companies trying to grow their streaming platforms but that have struggled significantly to do so, that might want the brand on there to draw a massive amount of users to the platform and hope they stick for other stuff on the platform. Both areas could potentially allow for relatively cheap streaming on their platform (like I already pay for Amazon Prime and would certainly ditch my youtube TV in a hot second and switch to apple TV if I could watch every game I wanted on apple TV).

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I think you mean that 1 in 2 people now stream their television content. They didn't stop watching. You can stream the NBA. the fact that a larger percentage of people still watch the NBA through traditional means is a problem, not a good sign. Your points about dynasty's is certainly well taken. As far as cutting the cord, the league knows how many people are watching through streaming; or at least they should.

Depending how you measure it, actual TV watching is in decline. My two kids watch nearly zero TV including streaming, I watch way less TV than I used to, including streaming. Small sample size, and maybe overly personal (just to point out my hypocrisy of accusing you of being overly personal about extrapolating your reasons for watching less basketball to a larger crowd), so it's certainly possible my experience is unique, but from what I have observed around my circles is that everyone watches less TV than they used to.

That said, if you include things like Tik Tok and Youtube and facebook/instagram reels as "TV" then then TV is definitely not in decline, but those short form, user created content has taken a good chunk of market share from professionally produced content.

Linear TV (TV channels) are by far the most in decline. On demand streaming platforms seem to generally be thriving, and are mostly what is replacing linear TV, but people are spending more and more time on short form stuff and social media stuff.

That said, I agree with what I think your point is, that the NBA not having moved away from the affiliate model and into an easily consumable streaming platform is a big problem for it. Most people on this forum would probably pay for a straight NBA streaming platform because we're paying for something far more expensive we don't want. I'd wager this is a cause much larger than style of the game for total viewership if you include streaming.

People don't want to pay for cable just for the NBA. They want to watch their local team with just an NBA package (or for other sports just their package), and the NBA is definitely caught in the cash cow cycle of business where it has to change, but the obvious ways to change is to cannibalize its own revenue but not changing will cannibalize its market share and popularity, and they only have the option to change very 5 years or so when their TV market deals end.

That's a difficult position for the NBA to navigate, which is why I posted in other threads, they're probably hoping for a bailout from Amazon or Apple. Two companies trying to grow their streaming platforms but that have struggled significantly to do so, that might want the brand on there to draw a massive amount of users to the platform and hope they stick for other stuff on the platform. Both areas could potentially allow for relatively cheap streaming on their platform (like I already pay for Amazon Prime and would certainly ditch my youtube TV in a hot second and switch to apple TV if I could watch every game I wanted on apple TV).

your children are watching youtube and twitch, right? if not, kudos to them, maybe they're reading books and playing outdoors like children did once upon a time.

frankly, I don't see why anyone would pay for a professional sports package. it's been close to a decade where the illegal streams have been just as good of quality as league pass and incredibly easy for the average fan to access (including my 70something-year-old father). why anyone would give away their money to these crooks is beyond me. the leagues seem to agree with me because they've never done anything about this easily fixable problem, ostensibly because they already got paid off the TV contract and don't give a **** and see a more sustainable revenue source in getting children addicted to gambling. I guess that's sports now.

[PaKii94]

I think you mean that 1 in 2 people now stream their television content. They didn't stop watching. You can stream the NBA. the fact that a larger percentage of people still watch the NBA through traditional means is a problem, not a good sign. Your points about dynasty's is certainly well taken. As far as cutting the cord, the league knows how many people are watching through streaming; or at least they should.

Depending how you measure it, actual TV watching is in decline. My two kids watch nearly zero TV including streaming, I watch way less TV than I used to, including streaming. Small sample size, and maybe overly personal (just to point out my hypocrisy of accusing you of being overly personal about extrapolating your reasons for watching less basketball to a larger crowd), so it's certainly possible my experience is unique, but from what I have observed around my circles is that everyone watches less TV than they used to.

That said, if you include things like Tik Tok and Youtube and facebook/instagram reels as "TV" then then TV is definitely not in decline, but those short form, user created content has taken a good chunk of market share from professionally produced content.

Linear TV (TV channels) are by far the most in decline. On demand streaming platforms seem to generally be thriving, and are mostly what is replacing linear TV, but people are spending more and more time on short form stuff and social media stuff.

That said, I agree with what I think your point is, that the NBA not having moved away from the affiliate model and into an easily consumable streaming platform is a big problem for it. Most people on this forum would probably pay for a straight NBA streaming platform because we're paying for something far more expensive we don't want. I'd wager this is a cause much larger than style of the game for total viewership if you include streaming.

People don't want to pay for cable just for the NBA. They want to watch their local team with just an NBA package (or for other sports just their package), and the NBA is definitely caught in the cash cow cycle of business where it has to change, but the obvious ways to change is to cannibalize its own revenue but not changing will cannibalize its market share and popularity, and they only have the option to change very 5 years or so when their TV market deals end.

That's a difficult position for the NBA to navigate, which is why I posted in other threads, they're probably hoping for a bailout from Amazon or Apple. Two companies trying to grow their streaming platforms but that have struggled significantly to do so, that might want the brand on there to draw a massive amount of users to the platform and hope they stick for other stuff on the platform. Both areas could potentially allow for relatively cheap streaming on their platform (like I already pay for Amazon Prime and would certainly ditch my youtube TV in a hot second and switch to apple TV if I could watch every game I wanted on apple TV).

your children are watching youtube and twitch, right? if not, kudos to them, maybe they're reading books and playing outdoors like children did once upon a time.

frankly, I don't see why anyone would pay for a professional sports package. it's been close to a decade where the illegal streams have been just as good of quality as league pass and incredibly easy for the average fan to access (including my 70something-year-old father). why anyone would give away their money to these crooks is beyond me. the leagues seem to agree with me because they've never done anything about this easily fixable problem, ostensibly because they already got paid off the TV contract and don't give a **** and see a more sustainable revenue source in getting children addicted to gambling. I guess that's sports now.

I have league pass (we'll a friend's) but between the blackouts and national games and the overall **** app, I just end up pulling up the pirate stream and casting it. Takes less time than it takes to load up the NBA app. If the NBA actually put some effort and money into making like a truly seamless net Gen experience I would pay a decent amount for the subscription. It won't happen though

[SalmonsSuperfan]

Depending how you measure it, actual TV watching is in decline. My two kids watch nearly zero TV including streaming, I watch way less TV than I used to, including streaming. Small sample size, and maybe overly personal (just to point out my hypocrisy of accusing you of being overly personal about extrapolating your reasons for watching less basketball to a larger crowd), so it's certainly possible my experience is unique, but from what I have observed around my circles is that everyone watches less TV than they used to.

That said, if you include things like Tik Tok and Youtube and facebook/instagram reels as "TV" then then TV is definitely not in decline, but those short form, user created content has taken a good chunk of market share from professionally produced content.

Linear TV (TV channels) are by far the most in decline. On demand streaming platforms seem to generally be thriving, and are mostly what is replacing linear TV, but people are spending more and more time on short form stuff and social media stuff.

That said, I agree with what I think your point is, that the NBA not having moved away from the affiliate model and into an easily consumable streaming platform is a big problem for it. Most people on this forum would probably pay for a straight NBA streaming platform because we're paying for something far more expensive we don't want. I'd wager this is a cause much larger than style of the game for total viewership if you include streaming.

People don't want to pay for cable just for the NBA. They want to watch their local team with just an NBA package (or for other sports just their package), and the NBA is definitely caught in the cash cow cycle of business where it has to change, but the obvious ways to change is to cannibalize its own revenue but not changing will cannibalize its market share and popularity, and they only have the option to change very 5 years or so when their TV market deals end.

That's a difficult position for the NBA to navigate, which is why I posted in other threads, they're probably hoping for a bailout from Amazon or Apple. Two companies trying to grow their streaming platforms but that have struggled significantly to do so, that might want the brand on there to draw a massive amount of users to the platform and hope they stick for other stuff on the platform. Both areas could potentially allow for relatively cheap streaming on their platform (like I already pay for Amazon Prime and would certainly ditch my youtube TV in a hot second and switch to apple TV if I could watch every game I wanted on apple TV).

your children are watching youtube and twitch, right? if not, kudos to them, maybe they're reading books and playing outdoors like children did once upon a time.

frankly, I don't see why anyone would pay for a professional sports package. it's been close to a decade where the illegal streams have been just as good of quality as league pass and incredibly easy for the average fan to access (including my 70something-year-old father). why anyone would give away their money to these crooks is beyond me. the leagues seem to agree with me because they've never done anything about this easily fixable problem, ostensibly because they already got paid off the TV contract and don't give a **** and see a more sustainable revenue source in getting children addicted to gambling. I guess that's sports now.

I have league pass (we'll a friend's) but between the blackouts and national games and the overall **** app, I just end up pulling up the pirate stream and casting it. Takes less time than it takes to load up the NBA app. If the NBA actually put some effort and money into making like a truly seamless net Gen experience I would pay a decent amount for the subscription. It won't happen though

this is exactly right. I used to pay for League Pass and I probably would again if they offered a service that was actually better than the free one.
"oh nick, but where are your ethics, you're stealing!". the nba has stolen basketball from the common man, I hope their next television contract plummets. all they think about is nickel and diming the fan and creating an addiction inside them instead of improving the quality of the sport. i can't be the only one that thinks the NBA is broken.

[dice]

- Enforce the rules equally regardless of the player in question

- Punish flopping instead of rewarding it

- Eliminate the stupid rule that results in a shooting foul if the defender lands anywhere near a shooter (it's called contesting a shot)

- Call offensive fouls when players lower their shoulder into a defender

- Call more traveling and carrying, it's out of hand

- Maybe test eliminating the defensive 3-second rule in the G League and see how that goes. I believe the NBA is the only level that has defensive 3 seconds, which contributes to why zone D is more common in college

This is just off the top of my head. It wouldn't fix things, but it would help.

refs using common sense would certainly go a long way. when the offensive move seems unfair, it usually is...a violation of the rules

parity will never be achieved due to the wider variance in offensive ability than defensive ability. but we've seen MORE parity in the past. i'd be curious to know a statistical representation of how much more. i could do the homework but i don't feel like it!

[Stratmaster]

your children are watching youtube and twitch, right? if not, kudos to them, maybe they're reading books and playing outdoors like children did once upon a time.

frankly, I don't see why anyone would pay for a professional sports package. it's been close to a decade where the illegal streams have been just as good of quality as league pass and incredibly easy for the average fan to access (including my 70something-year-old father). why anyone would give away their money to these crooks is beyond me. the leagues seem to agree with me because they've never done anything about this easily fixable problem, ostensibly because they already got paid off the TV contract and don't give a **** and see a more sustainable revenue source in getting children addicted to gambling. I guess that's sports now.

I have league pass (we'll a friend's) but between the blackouts and national games and the overall **** app, I just end up pulling up the pirate stream and casting it. Takes less time than it takes to load up the NBA app. If the NBA actually put some effort and money into making like a truly seamless net Gen experience I would pay a decent amount for the subscription. It won't happen though

this is exactly right. I used to pay for League Pass and I probably would again if they offered a service that was actually better than the free one.
"oh nick, but where are your ethics, you're stealing!". the nba has stolen basketball from the common man, I hope their next television contract plummets. all they think about is nickel and diming the fan and creating an addiction inside them instead of improving the quality of the sport. i can't be the only one that thinks the NBA is broken.

As a musician, I have long since stopped being surprised by people who find any way to rationalize stealing someone else's product. The fact that so many on here blatantly state they do, feeling no shame and no fear of repercussion, is really very sad.

If the product is so broken, why would anyone feel the need to steal it?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[PaKii94]

I have league pass (we'll a friend's) but between the blackouts and national games and the overall **** app, I just end up pulling up the pirate stream and casting it. Takes less time than it takes to load up the NBA app. If the NBA actually put some effort and money into making like a truly seamless net Gen experience I would pay a decent amount for the subscription. It won't happen though

this is exactly right. I used to pay for League Pass and I probably would again if they offered a service that was actually better than the free one.
"oh nick, but where are your ethics, you're stealing!". the nba has stolen basketball from the common man, I hope their next television contract plummets. all they think about is nickel and diming the fan and creating an addiction inside them instead of improving the quality of the sport. i can't be the only one that thinks the NBA is broken.

As a musician, I have long since stopped being surprised by people who find any way to rationalize stealing someone else's product. The fact that so many on here blatantly state they do, feeling no shame and no fear of repercussion, is really very sad.

If the product is so broken, why would anyone feel the need to steal it?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

I have a cable subscription and split the league pass cost with my friend so I pay for it and yet I prefer the pirate provider. That does tell you how broken the product is.

Same thing with the steaming services. Have those bundled from various places. They have increased cost while adding ADs and yet their apps are very 2010s. My pirate version is much more seamless, better quality (less buffering and compression) no ads and my preferences for subtitles/playback.


There is a reason why there is much less pirating for music nowadays. Because the music streaming services are worth it. Media and sports need to catch up.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

I have league pass (we'll a friend's) but between the blackouts and national games and the overall **** app, I just end up pulling up the pirate stream and casting it. Takes less time than it takes to load up the NBA app. If the NBA actually put some effort and money into making like a truly seamless net Gen experience I would pay a decent amount for the subscription. It won't happen though

this is exactly right. I used to pay for League Pass and I probably would again if they offered a service that was actually better than the free one.
"oh nick, but where are your ethics, you're stealing!". the nba has stolen basketball from the common man, I hope their next television contract plummets. all they think about is nickel and diming the fan and creating an addiction inside them instead of improving the quality of the sport. i can't be the only one that thinks the NBA is broken.

As a musician, I have long since stopped being surprised by people who find any way to rationalize stealing someone else's product. The fact that so many on here blatantly state they do, feeling no shame and no fear of repercussion, is really very sad.

If the product is so broken, why would anyone feel the need to steal it?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

seriously? these leagues steal from you. Jerry Reinsdorf wants to steal $1 billion from you to build a new ballpark. league pass is extortion, it's a garbage product that they manage to make worse every year. I used to pay for it but it's such a lousy service. like I said, seemingly the leagues don't actually care because they've done nothing to take down these very easy to find websites. they already got paid. so I guess I'm supposed to feel bad for advertisers like Draft Kings and Coors. I do not feel bad for them, you should feel bad for not wanting their profits to dip.