Are the Warriors bad for the NBA?

[MrBaynes]

Don't kill the messenger here, I found this article to be very interesting and couldn't find a thread on here discussing it;

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/golden-state-warriors-stephen-curry-good-for-nba-012816

It was the start of what many believed would be the Warriors' toughest stretch this season: at Cleveland, at Chicago, home against Indiana and home against San Antonio.

Not only did the Warriors go 4-0, but they barely broke a sweat;€“ crushing the Cavs, Bulls and Spurs by a combined 95 points. This was supposed to be the Warriors' stumbling block as they pursued the '95-96 Bulls' 72-10 mark. Instead, it was further proof that the Warriors are far and away better than everyone else in the Association.

So why even bother watching, right? Well, it looks like that's exactly what's happening league-wide.

Despite the Warriors' brilliance, the league's TV viewership is down 8.2 percent on TNT and 5.6 percent on ESPN. Steph Curry is must-see TV, but it's not translating into better TV ratings for the NBA.

....

So why is the NBA struggling to get fans to tune into games? Maybe fans are just bored of the Warriors making the rest of league look like cannon fodder, possibly waiting to see if Golden State gets challenged in the playoffs.

The Warriors are facing off more with history than any of their contemporaries. Other than wondering if they will break the Bulls' mark, the Warriors have robbed the NBA's regular season of any drama.

I would explain the drop in tv viewership possibly on the large # of Laker games being broadcast as I doubt they have the same impact that they had in previous seasons. However, I think I am overall in agreement with the author. Never have I seen a season that seems this lopsided. Even last year in our naivety there was almost a feeling that there were 8 relevant teams in the West. Up until a couple of weeks ago it was pretty much a consensus that 3 teams had a shot. Then one of those teams massacred the other 2.

The Warriors are great, no one is disputing that. However are they GOOD for the league? Have they made the regular season more irrelevant than it had already become? Is this the worry that some people feel deep down if they ADD Durant?

Discuss.

[The_Ghost_of_JB]

The warriors are a good team but the spurs have a shot to take them out. As far as I am concerned Lebron and his team super friends are worse for the league than the warriors. This will be the 6th year in a row team Lebron has made the regular season completely irreverent for every single team in the east.

But to answer you question: No it's not really good when there are 30 teams in a league and there are only 3 teams that have a shot at a title. I really cannot hold it against the warriors though because their core guys, Curry, Thompson and Green, are players they drafted unlike Lebron who handpicks his teammates.

[RunSunRun]

Think people are sick of the "but could they beat the 95-96 Bulls" meme, hence the decline.

[Overhere]

How much of that has to do with the rise of cord-cutting vs. the on-court product though? I think ESPN has lost 7 million subscribers in the past 2 years or something along those lines.

I have trouble seeing a top-heavy NBA being bad for national TV ratings. Local sure, but national TV should show the biggest matchups between the best teams (and Lakers), so having an unbalanced league shouldn't make too much of a difference there. It's not like the NBA has ever had great parity throughout the league, both in it's up and down years ratings wise.

[contract]

No. Good basketball can never be a bad thing for the NBA.

[Froob]

Only thing they did that was bad was bring those awful sleeved jerseys to the league.

[Dominator83]

No. Casual fans love a dynasty. Or atleast love to hate one!

[JDR720]

I typically dont like "superteams" but since most of their best players were drafted by them i dont have a problem with it. i would feel different if they spent a lot of money on FA's and tried to "buy" a title, if they somehow manage to get KD i would be pretty irritated.

[yoyoboy]

The warriors are a good team but the spurs have a shot to take them out. As far as I am concerned Lebron and his team super friends are worse for the league than the warriors. This will be the 6th year in a row team Lebron has made the regular season completely irreverent for every single team in the east.

But to answer you question: No it's not really good when there are 30 teams in a league and there are only 3 teams that have a shot at a title. I really cannot hold it against the warriors though because their core guys, Curry, Thompson and Green, are players they drafted unlike Lebron who handpicks his teammates.

Super friends? LeBron doesn't even have another All-Star on his team...

You must have really high standards for him if you seriously expect him to win a title with a roster like the one we threw out there in the Finals last season (or 2007).

[miltk]

Don't kill the messenger here, I found this article to be very interesting and couldn't find a thread on here discussing it;

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/golden-state-warriors-stephen-curry-good-for-nba-012816

It was the start of what many believed would be the Warriors' toughest stretch this season: at Cleveland, at Chicago, home against Indiana and home against San Antonio.

Not only did the Warriors go 4-0, but they barely broke a sweat;€“ crushing the Cavs, Bulls and Spurs by a combined 95 points. This was supposed to be the Warriors' stumbling block as they pursued the '95-96 Bulls' 72-10 mark. Instead, it was further proof that the Warriors are far and away better than everyone else in the Association.

So why even bother watching, right? Well, it looks like that's exactly what's happening league-wide.

Despite the Warriors' brilliance, the league's TV viewership is down 8.2 percent on TNT and 5.6 percent on ESPN. Steph Curry is must-see TV, but it's not translating into better TV ratings for the NBA.

....

So why is the NBA struggling to get fans to tune into games? Maybe fans are just bored of the Warriors making the rest of league look like cannon fodder, possibly waiting to see if Golden State gets challenged in the playoffs.

The Warriors are facing off more with history than any of their contemporaries. Other than wondering if they will break the Bulls' mark, the Warriors have robbed the NBA's regular season of any drama.

I would explain the drop in tv viewership possibly on the large # of Laker games being broadcast as I doubt they have the same impact that they had in previous seasons. However, I think I am overall in agreement with the author. Never have I seen a season that seems this lopsided. Even last year in our naivety there was almost a feeling that there were 8 relevant teams in the West. Up until a couple of weeks ago it was pretty much a consensus that 3 teams had a shot. Then one of those teams massacred the other 2.

The Warriors are great, no one is disputing that. However are they GOOD for the league? Have they made the regular season more irrelevant than it had already become? Is this the worry that some people feel deep down if they ADD Durant?

Discuss.

it's never bad to have dominance or dynasty,,,so far for gsw - dominance. it leads the way into the future. it creates a paradigm for how the game should be played. it's good for fan interest. without dominance there is only mediocrity - the game being comfortable with the status quo. ucla and college basketball. bama and college football. russell and the celts. tiger and golf. bolt and the sprint. spurs and nba.

everybody is required to step it up and that is good for the sport. my only problem is i never liked the 3pt shot - it has ruined the game in so many ways. move the line back to 25' and eliminate the corner 3, and the 3 becomes the bonus shot it was meant to be.

[dc]

The drop in overall viewership has everything to do with the Lebron Heat breaking up and the Lakers being firmly entrenched as a bottom dweller.

If you look at the Warriors road games, you'll typically see the year's highest resold ticket prices for the team that they're playing. People clearly want to watch the Warriors. The Wiz hosting the Warriors, for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2016/02/02/warriors-visit-will-mark-most-expensive-wizards-game-in-at-least-six-years/

If Lebron was stringing together more championships or the Lakers dynasty somehow seamlessly picked up right after Kobe's best days were over, there wouldn't be any drop in viewership.

If the league wants a jump in viewership, they need Lebron to win some more 'ships or the Lakers or Knicks to start up a new dynasty. The main thing will always be the Lakers (and maybe the Knicks someday). A dominant Lakers team will always mean high ratings for the league. A Lakers team that is a cellar dweller or merely just "good" will mean lower ratings. Simple as that.

[brownbobcat]

It's a silly conclusion. It's a 30-team league, which means there are upwards of 14 games on any given night not involving GS.

What does the Warriors dominance have anything to do with someone not wanting to watch a mid-season snoozer between the Sixers and Knicks?

[KennyDuwayne]

It's a silly conclusion. It's a 30-team league, which means there are upwards of 14 games on any given night not involving GS.

What does the Warriors dominance have anything to do with someone not wanting to watch a mid-season snoozer between the Sixers and Knicks?

Lol this. Severe overreaching by the guy who wrote the article. The only people who would tune out of a Warriors game are the fans of the team getting blown out. And at that point, sometimes you even continue watching because you admire their brand of basketball.

I'm a Blazers fan and I dont usually watch other teams play, but I will tune into a Warriors game if I see it on TV.

[SlavicTears]

Oh hey, clickbait, fun.

I won't give the guy another view on his moronic article by clicking, but the answer is no, of course not.

[Doctor MJ]

I would explain the drop in tv viewership possibly on the large # of Laker games being broadcast as I doubt they have the same impact that they had in previous seasons. However, I think I am overall in agreement with the author. Never have I seen a season that seems this lopsided. Even last year in our naivety there was almost a feeling that there were 8 relevant teams in the West. Up until a couple of weeks ago it was pretty much a consensus that 3 teams had a shot. Then one of those teams massacred the other 2.

The Warriors are great, no one is disputing that. However are they GOOD for the league? Have they made the regular season more irrelevant than it had already become? Is this the worry that some people feel deep down if they ADD Durant?

Discuss.

I'm not seeing indicators that this season in particular is having a bizarre decline. The data I'm seeing is showing a general trend over the past few years.

While theoretically a super-dominant champ could make games seem pointless to watch, the reality is that in an 82 game season, they're all pointless to watch virtually. Those who regularly tune in for the broadcast do so either because they follow the game closely enough that every game is meaningful, or because it's just a habit they like.

IBy contrast, when we get into the playoffs, much of the ratings are directly tied to star power, and it's entirely possible that the Warriors will soon achieve a level of historical noteworthiness we rarely see. Last year's finals had the highest ratings since the Shaq-Kobe Lakers. Don't be shocked at all if this year's finals are the highest rated since Jordan's Bulls.

[The_Ghost_of_JB]

The warriors are a good team but the spurs have a shot to take them out. As far as I am concerned Lebron and his team super friends are worse for the league than the warriors. This will be the 6th year in a row team Lebron has made the regular season completely irreverent for every single team in the east.

But to answer you question: No it's not really good when there are 30 teams in a league and there are only 3 teams that have a shot at a title. I really cannot hold it against the warriors though because their core guys, Curry, Thompson and Green, are players they drafted unlike Lebron who handpicks his teammates.

Super friends? LeBron doesn't even have another All-Star on his team...

You must have really high standards for him if you seriously expect him to win a title with a roster like the one we threw out there in the Finals last season (or 2007).

Well it's not like the cavs had a whole lot of choices who to throw out there in the finals last year. There is very little doubt in my mind the Cavs would have won the finals had Love and Irving been healthy.

As for Lebron not having another all star on his team: Does Kobe belong in the AS game? Nope but he was voted in by the fans. Is Isiah Thomas, Paul Millsap, Wade and Bosh better than Irving and Love? Nope but they were voted in. The all star voting has been a joke for years so that is a weak argument if that's what you're going with. For the 6th year in a row team Lebron is absolutely stacked.

[Salieri]

Correlation doesn't mean causation. I'm sure there will be people who's gonna stop watching games because of the perceived lack of competition, but I'm also sure there will be people who will start watching games just because they wanna witness history in the making. Which group will be more numerous? I don't know, but taking a look at TV ratings during Jordan's era might help figure it out a bit.

As others have said, when the 3 top markets don't have top tier teams, their fanbases will lose a big bunch of casual viewers. And right now the Bulls are kinda frustrating to watch, the knicks' most exciting player is european, and the Lakers are bottom dwellers. Not a very good recipe for american TVratings.

[JC16]

Lol is this a joke? If anything the warriors are teaching us how the game should be played. They are on par with the spurs in ball movement. They get such easy baskets because everyone is passing the damn ball. We no longer live in an era where you have one guy dominating the ball and scoring buckets (iverson/kobe/melo) its a team game and its beautiful to watch.

[510TWSS]

Yeah, the article blames the W's when it's not really their fault. The W's -Spurs Monday night NBA TV broadcast was the most watched telecast to date for that channel.

http://www.nba.com/2016/news/01/26/spurs-warriors-record-ratings.ap/

The casual fans are more likely to tune in when their team plays the W's.

[McKenna]

I'm not sure why I'm not sold on it yet. Perhaps it's the bulk 3's. I'm much more interested in play in the paint. Post work, hard rebounding, hard cuts to the rim etc.

I see GS as a brilliant team, Curry has finally arrived - and I love watching my countryman Bogut play in a system that suits his point-centre style. Yet I quietly wish for their demise in the playoffs and their 72-10 chase. Even worse, I'd probably like to see Cleveland get one finally instead of Duncan getting his 6th.. but either result would be much better than seeing GS steam roll their way through to the chip.

Just my gut feeling, plus the Bulls got force fed to us over here in the 90's yet I never went against the grain watching their dominance back then. I loved everything about them.

Dunno man, perhaps my gut feeling is exactly what you're talking about.