The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[One Brow]

Local media deals are tiny compared to the national NBA TV deal, it's not even remotely close.

How much are the Jazz getting off the national TV deal this year, and how much off of the local coverage?

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I doubt there has been any serious cost-benefits analysis in shortening the season. They arent doing it simply because people dont like change because with change there is always risk.

The owners also always love playing poor too, so they will say that a shortened season equals less profits no matter what and that will cause the players to veto any proposal.

lolololololol... yeah they have never done any serious analysis about this.

The players are the ones who would take the biggest hit. Tell them they are taking a 5-10% hit for the next few years but next time the national TV deal hits it will all work out.

 

[KqWIN]

How much are the Jazz getting off the national TV deal this year, and how much off of the local coverage?

The Jazz most recent deal (beginning in 2021) was for $35M a season. The current National TV deal (signed in 2014) is bringing in $2.7 billion which is split across the teams which is about $90M per team per season. The NBA is seeking $7.5 billion per season for their next deal, which would amount to $250M per team per season.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Maybe you have convinced me that it will decrease in the short term, but I still believe it is to a lesser degree than you seem to present. It's not an interesting point of discussion for me because it is not why I advocate for a shortened season and I do not believe short term revenue should be the deciding factor. When making a decision to shortened the season, I think the obvious concern is long term and not the short term. I don't think it will happen, but it really doesn't change my opinion that it should. To me, you have provided the reason why NBA teams are making the mistake (scared about short term loses), but what I really care about is if it is better for the league long term. The National NBA TV deal is by far and away the biggest money maker, it should be the main focus of the NBA and the best way to drive viewership up is to improve the quality of the product.

You are very focused on the short term and IF it will happen. I'm focused on the long term and if it SHOULD happen.

I'm simply stating the reasons they haven't done it. Should it happen? I am not even sure that is a yes. Is knocking 10 games off the schedule going to make the regular season way more impactful without other changes? Once teams are locked in they will rest down the stretch. So Steph will play that game in NO cuz the schedule is less condensed... mission accomplished?

There is no guarantee the product will be any better and you will have reduced inventory. Basketball is not football even if there are fewer games meaning they have higher stakes. Basketball is not soccer where they have systems and infrastructure to punish losing and reward marginal winning.

Even if you make the product better there is no guarantee it attracts more dollars.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

lolololololol... yeah they have never done any serious analysis about this.

The players are the ones who would take the biggest hit. Tell them they are taking a 5-10% hit for the next few years but next time the national TV deal hits it will all work out.

I doubt they have. It would be a lot of work and require access to the books of every team. It's way more complicated than you are making it out to be.

The end of the day the owners will always use anything they can to cry poor by withholding information.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I doubt they have. It would be a lot of work and require access to the books of every team. It's way more complicated than you are making it out to be.

The end of the day the owners will always use anything they can to cry poor by withholding information.

Yes these billionaires have never done any serious analysis here. The league has also never done it. Its on their to-do list still.

 

[KqWIN]

I'm simply stating the reasons they haven't done it. Should it happen? I am not even sure that is a yes. Is knocking 10 games off the schedule going to make the regular season way more impactful without other changes? Once teams are locked in they will rest down the stretch. So Steph will play that game in NO cuz the schedule is less condensed... mission accomplished?

There is no guarantee the product will be any better and you will have reduced inventory. Basketball is not football even if there are fewer games meaning they have higher stakes. Basketball is not soccer where they have systems and infrastructure to punish losing and reward marginal winning.

Even if you make the product better there is no guarantee it attracts more dollars.

It would be a step in the right direction for sure, and as I've noted in other post I'm a huge proponent of additional measures that make the games more important. It is obvious that when there are less games, the games are more important. It may not solve the issue in entirety, but again, what evidence is there that 82 is ideal? There isn't, it's an arbitrary number made under different conditions. What is clear is that 82 games is leading to a diminished product where the players cannot handle that load and the games are not consequential enough for them play all of them. The tradeoff for playing and competing compared to the benefit simply isn't in good balance. To improve the quality, reduce the games to an amount where the players receive adequate rest and/or increase the incentive to compete. Both would be great. One or the other is at least a step in the right direction.

Personally, I would not be concerned about the product not affecting viewership and therefore driving more revenue. I would be worried about the product being diminished and that bringing in less viewers. There is a reason why the NBA is trying to put in measures to try to improve the quality of games. It's freaking obvious, better quality means better viewership. Worse quality means less viewership.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yes these billionaires have never done any serious analysis here. The league has also never done it. Its on their to-do list still.

You sound like the people who say head coaches can never be wrong because they are head coaches of a NBA team.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

You sound like the people who say head coaches can never be wrong because they are head coaches of a NBA team.

You sound like the type of person that makes up alternative scenarios that have no bearing on a particular subject when you are in over your head.

Yes billionaires have never considered multiple revenue projections/scenarios. FOH.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

It would be a step in the right direction for sure, and as I've noted in other post I'm a huge proponent of additional measures that make the games more important. It is obvious that when there are less games, the games are more important. It may not solve the issue in entirety, but again, what evidence is there that 82 is ideal? There isn't, it's an arbitrary number made under different conditions. What is clear is that 82 games is leading to a diminished product where the players cannot handle that load and the games are not consequential enough for them play all of them. The tradeoff for playing and competing compared to the benefit simply isn't in good balance. To improve the quality, reduce the games to an amount where the players receive adequate rest and/or increase the incentive to compete. Both would be great. One or the other is at least a step in the right direction.

Personally, I would not be concerned about the product not affecting viewership and therefore driving more revenue. I would be worried about the product being diminished and that bringing in less viewers. There is a reason why the NBA is trying to put in measures to try to improve the quality of games. It's freaking obvious, better quality means better viewership. Worse quality means less viewership.

Simply reducing games by an arbitrary amount does not necessarily make the other games more important. With 5-10 games left teams will know where they stand whether there are 72 or 82 games left. Steph or some other star sitting 3-4 games a year for load management really hurt the product that much? Does a 72 game season mean Kawhi or Zion will stay healthy? If you think the product is good enough for everyone to take a pay hit/cut then by all means. Those that would be taking the pay cut have been opposed thus far.

There are lots of ways to add viewership or lose viewership and a better product should help increase viewership but there isn't a guarantee. I know boomers walked away from games because of the league's "wokeness". You can put together a high quality movie with an amazing plot, acting, etc. and still get murdered at the box office by Fast and the Furious.

The things you consider certain are not certain.

 

[infection]

Here’s the problem, from my view…

It’s people like us that complain about the product. We’re not the normies. We’re also an exception. We’re a consistent base, despite being a relative minority. We’re watching regardless, and we watch a lot of games so we complain about the product. But the league isn’t likely to lose us. To whatever degree they decrease our viewership, they’re gaining a bunch of casuals — their real target. How much does a 10 game reduction improve the product? I’d have a hard time thinking your ceiling on potential benefit to product is higher than 10% (and I’m feeling that’s pretty generous… my guess is that it’s negligible, especially after rebalancing [think lifestyle creep as an analogy, in a way]). Is a 10% improvement in product perceivable to the casual fan? I’d have serious doubts. Again, the people that the 10% is perceivable to are us assholes that will be watching anyway.

So the losses are real and tangible (ticket sales, local TV, concessions, merchandise) while the potential benefits are entirely theoretical, and could potential not be realized at all.

 

[KqWIN]

Simply reducing games by an arbitrary amount does not necessarily make the other games more important. With 5-10 games left teams will know where they stand whether there are 72 or 82 games left. Steph or some other star sitting 3-4 games a year for load management really hurt the product that much? Does a 72 game season mean Kawhi or Zion will stay healthy? If you think the product is good enough for everyone to take a pay hit/cut then by all means. Those that would be taking the pay cut have been opposed thus far.

There are lots of ways to add viewership or lose viewership and a better product should help increase viewership but there isn't a guarantee. I know boomers walked away from games because of the league's "wokeness". You can put together a high quality movie with an amazing plot, acting, etc. and still get murdered at the box office by Fast and the Furious.

The things you consider certain are not certain.

Reducing the games does increase the importance. You cannot create these hypothetical anecdotes to argue that it makes no difference. The chances that Steph is playing in a game because it is important to him to win is greater in a 72 game season. The chances that Kawhi or Zion is playing in a game because the are healthy is greater in a 72 game season than an 82 game season. The incentive to play because it's important to win is always greater in 72 than in 82 and the chances of sitting due to inadequate health are always lower. I don't believe it is a complete solution, but I find it hard to believe that reducing amount of games does not make the games more important. I also think the Fast and the Furious movie is a dreadful comparison because while people line up for movie stars, explosions, and actions they do not line up for worse basketball compared to better basketball. If you can have some skepticism that better basketball may not produce better viewership, I have some skepticism that 82 games is the best way to generate revenue for the NBA long term.

This discussion is still fairly new and such a large change would take time. Adam Silver has stated he is open to the idea. CJ McCollum (speaking for the players) have said the players have discussed but no conclusion yet. It's not as if it is being voted on regularly and can be implemented in an instant. I'm pessimistic about it happening, but I don't take the fact that it hasn't been passed as an indication that it is a bad idea. I bet you can't find a single NBA fan who can't name something they wouldn't change about the league, but that doesn't mean all of the changes are bad idea. The financial implications of this move (both in short and long term) are not concrete. But the quality of the NBA product is something they should always be conscious of and increasing the quality of their product is the best way to keep revenue healthy.

 

[infection]

I believe the percentage of games players miss would remain the same. I don’t believe we’re subtracting the 10 games everyone is going to sit.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Reducing the games does increase the importance. You cannot create these hypothetical anecdotes to argue that it makes no difference. The chances that Steph is playing in a game because it is important to him to win is greater in a 72 game season. The chances that Kawhi or Zion is playing in a game because the are healthy is greater in a 72 game season than an 82 game season. The incentive to play because it's important to win is always greater in 72 than in 82 and the chances of sitting due to inadequate health are always lower.

After game 25-30 the standing don't change all that much. The incentive to play should be higher... games should matter a bit more... but the overall problem is the "ring culture" according to some here... 10 less games doesn't change that. Instead of 82 pointless games... you have 72... again problem solved?

I don't believe it is a complete solution, but I find it hard to believe that reducing amount of games does not make the games more important. I also think the Fast and the Furious movie is a dreadful comparison because while people line up for movie stars, explosions, and actions they do not line up for worse basketball compared to better basketball. If you can have some skepticism that better basketball may not produce better viewership, I have some skepticism that 82 games is the best way to generate revenue for the NBA long term.

Its a great comparison. Fast and Furious gives cheap thrills and stars. Give the casuals some sweet highlights and the stars and they cool even if the teams aren't executing the perfect motion sets etc. Spurs played maybe the most beautiful basketball in recent memory... everyone said they boring. Stars are a big driver of the league and revenue. Remove 10 games and you might remove 3-4 load management games that Steph would have had... but you took 6 additional ones off the table.

This discussion is still fairly new and such a large change would take time. Adam Silver has stated he is open to the idea. CJ McCollum (speaking for the players) have said the players have discussed but no conclusion yet. It's not as if it is being voted on regularly and can be implemented in an instant. I'm pessimistic about it happening, but I don't take the fact that it hasn't been passed as an indication that it is a bad idea. I bet you can't find a single NBA fan who can't name something they wouldn't change about the league, but that doesn't mean all of the changes are bad idea. The financial implications of this move (both in short and long term) are not concrete. But the quality of the NBA product is something they should always be conscious of and increasing the quality of their product is the best way to keep revenue healthy.

Maybe it gets some traction... it would come with a short term loss of revenue for both sides. That hurts the players who are short term focused and the teams bottom line (and valuations). I think it will be one of the last things they do to make the regular season more meaningful... many seem to think it should be the main thing or first thing... I just don't think so.

 

[KqWIN]

Here’s the problem, from my view…

It’s people like us that complain about the product. We’re not the normies. We’re also an exception. We’re a consistent base, despite being a relative minority. We’re watching regardless, and we watch a lot of games so we complain about the product. But the league isn’t likely to lose us. To whatever degree they decrease our viewership, they’re gaining a bunch of casuals — their real target. How much does a 10 game reduction improve the product? I’d have a hard time thinking your ceiling on potential benefit to product is higher than 10% (and I’m feeling that’s pretty generous… my guess is that it’s negligible, especially after rebalancing [think lifestyle creep as an analogy, in a way]). Is a 10% improvement in product perceivable to the casual fan? I’d have serious doubts. Again, the people that the 10% is perceivable to are us assholes that will be watching anyway.

So the losses are real and tangible (ticket sales, local TV, concessions, merchandise) while the potential benefits are entirely theoretical, and could potential not be realized at all.

By far the biggest driver of NBA revenue is the national TV deal and a reduction of games would have see no decrease in the number of national TV games. A small percentage increase in National TV viewership would offset a much larger percentage decrease in local TV money. A 10% reduction in games doesn't even mean a 10% reduction in ticket sale revenue and it definitely is not a 10% in total revenue. And for casuals, the most important thing possible is that big name stars are playing. The NBA has taken the path of trying to force players to play with fines, which is something, but I don't think it's debatable that reducing the number of games also increases the chances of a star playing on any given night.

 

[KqWIN]

After game 25-30 the standing don't change all that much. The incentive to play should be higher... games should matter a bit more... but the overall problem is the "ring culture" according to some here... 10 less games doesn't change that. Instead of 82 pointless games... you have 72... again problem solved?


Its a great comparison. Fast and Furious gives cheap thrills and stars. Give the casuals some sweet highlights and the stars and they cool even if the teams aren't executing the perfect motion sets etc. Spurs played maybe the most beautiful basketball in recent memory... everyone said they boring. Stars are a big driver of the league and revenue. Remove 10 games and you might remove 3-4 load management games that Steph would have had... but you took 6 additional ones off the table.


Maybe it gets some traction... it would come with a short term loss of revenue for both sides. That hurts the players who are short term focused and the teams bottom line (and valuations). I think it will be one of the last things they do to make the regular season more meaningful... many seem to think it should be the main thing or first thing... I just don't think so.

For the one millionth time, I do not think it solves the entire problem. This is the last time you say "problem solved" and I have to repeat myself. It's a step in the right direction and will leave the NBA in a better spot than 82. It is not the entire solution. It's literally in the post you quoted. Why you keep moving the goalposts, I have no idea. Imagine if I replied to your responses with "problem solved?" because it does solve the problem entirely. I'll tell you what, I agree with a lot of changes you proposed....but there ain't a single one that is a yes to "problem solved". But I don't feel the need move the goalposts. A good idea can still be a good idea even if it does not solve the entire problem. What next, you gonna say my proposal doesn't solve world hunger?

By reducing the number of games, you are increasing the likelihood of the cheap thrills and stars. It's a terrible comparison. 72 games means that the chances Steph is playing on national TV is greater. When I say the quality of games is higher, I do not mean playing Spurs basketball. Where the hell did that come from? I am talking about the big ticket players playing in big ticket games on national TV. The chances of him playing because it's important to win is greater, the chances of him playing because he is not already injured is greater, the chances of him playing because he does not need to rest for injury prevention is greater. Casuals are not watching more basketball because there is less talent on the floor and the game is less important.

As for your last point, again....do not care to argue if it WILL happen. I'm talking about if it should happen. But the fact that it hasn't happened does not feel like a strong argument as to why it shouldn't happen.

 

[Agent#00]

Todays nba have no rivalry, everybody’s buddy buddy. Don’t want to hurt each others feelings. Who’s gonna watch that?

 

[infection]

If we as a moderation staff removed 12% of all threads, would it improve the quality of the rest of the forum because we’d be less likely to have endless HH/KqWIN debates, or would those debates move to the other threads?

 

[HermanG]

If you combine the tanking incentives with the play-in format, you end up in a situation where there are not many teams left out who actually dont want to be left out.

Reducing games doesnt change that at all.

Increasing teams to 32 would help and getting rid of the play-in would be the 2nd easy option. Back before play-in was implemented, the playoff bubble used to be an actual thing.

 

[hgb]

I think what Cy's talking about is the main problem. Losing should never be a incentivized. Also, I think play-in is a good thing, because it means more teams will be in the running for playoffs much longer.