The Rest of the Story

Last Tuesday (Nov. 25), I ran a piece about the NBA’s television ratings, wherein I questioned the merits of the previously linked Nielsen story which raved about improved NBA ratings.

My quibble was in regard to the way in which the data was presented. Rather than list all the teams’ ratings, it only listed the top ten, a completely flawed methodology. As I argued last week, how can you say the league’s ratings are improved when you only tell us half of the story?

Well, consider this the other half of the story.

Thanks to an anonymous commenter with access to local Nielsen ratings, here is the whole enchilada. Listed are the teams, and the percentage change in their ratings relative to last season. Note that these ratings are only for local broadcasts, and do not include ESPN, TNT, ABC, or whomever.

Hornets, 163%
Cavs, 105%
Hawks, 93%
Blazers, 44%
Sixers, 14%
Wizards, 11%
Grizzlies, 10%
Knicks, 10%
Lakers, 9%
T-Wolves, 6%
Pistons, 5%
Bulls, 1%

Nets, 0%

Rockets, -8%
Warriors, -15%
Celtics, -18%
Nuggets, -22%
Pacers, -23%
Magic, -24%
Bucks, -24%
Heat, -24%
Spurs, -26%
Suns, -38%
Mavericks, -54%
Clippers, -60%

Missing: OKC, Charlotte, Sacramento, Toronto, Jazz

Let’s assume Oklahoma City’s ratings are better than the Sonics’ (for the sake of Clay Bennett’s mental health, they better be). And, let’s assume the Raptors and Jazz are also doing decently. I think we can also assume that the Hornets and Kings are seeing lower numbers than before, simply because that’s what their attendance figures would indicate.

Regardless of the missing numbers, that’s a pretty whopping indictment of how popular the league is. The argument that attendance is down but ratings are up? Hogwash.

There are four teams with an increase of 20 points or more, but there are nine with decreases of 20 points or more (if you include the missing five teams, the numbers might change to five increases and ten or eleven decreases). The Boston Celtics – World Champs, etc, etc, - have seen an 18% decline in their ratings. The Mavericks are looking at a drop of nearly half from last season.

Now, there are rebuttals to this argument. For one thing, the season is still early and the NBA will obviously do better after the NFL and college football are in the rear-view mirror. Plus, the really meaningful games (and concurrent improved ratings) don’t occur until the spring.

Still, I think it’s safe to say that anyone who argues that the NBA is sailing along just fine, thank you, is burying his head in the sand.

Let’s face it, folks, if your best argument is that you’re more popular than the NHL, well, that’s not much of an argument.

Alright, Then

You know the hackneyed expression, "Oh, no he didn't!"

I think that applies here.

Oklahoma City, I'm not hatin' on you, honestly. But, man, when you're using stock footage of a group of four people ambling to your arena to show how hyped your city is for the NBA, and when your singer has to read the lyrics from his cell phone, well, maybe you just ought to go back to the drawing board on that one.

War "Not in Our House."

[courtesy of Bend it Like Bennett.]

NBA v GDP

Here’s an unusual question for you – what sort of relationship, if any, exists between NBA attendance and the US economy?

The reflexive answer would be a strong one. Naturally, when the economy struggles, people cut back on entertainment expenses, such as season tickets, luxury suites, Danny Fortson jerseys, you know, big-ticket items.

With that in mind, here are a couple of graphs which chart that relationship. To accommodate two disparate figures, I have listed two items:

1. The yearly percentage change in average attendance at an NBA game
2. The yearly percentage change in US GDP

For the Econ majors out there – I hear you. GDP is a crass measurement of economic activity. It fails to account for any number of items in day-to-day life and has been habitually adjusted by the government to hide deficiencies in economic progress. I get it. But, all that being said, it is the common measuring stick for the economy in the US, so let’s use it anyways.

Shown below is the data from 1963-2008.

As you can see, there is more than just a passing relationship between the two sets of numbers but, when viewed from this distance, it’s somewhat tenuous. However, as time has marched on, you can see that : 1) the two numbers have developed a stronger relationship, and, 2) that the NBA is much less prone to year-over-year swings in attendance growth now than in the past.

For example, from 1963 to 1993, there were seven instances of a yearly change in attendance greater than 10%. From 1994 to 2008, there were zero instances of that happening. What caused the decline in wild swings?

I think there are a couple of reasons:

1. The league has grown more popular. Up until the late 1970s, the league was such a marginal entity the NBA Finals were shown on tape delay. Since the days of Magic and Bird (and MJ), that’s no longer the case. The league has reached a somewhat consistent level of popularity, and is unlikely to repeat its huge increases (and decreases) in attendance.

2. Stadiums are much closer to capacity now, limiting the ability of the league to experience large levels of growth. Any increases now would be marginal, short of selling seats on top of the backboards or staging a “Winter Classic” at the Rose Bowl.

But back to the point of this story – what can we learn from previous GDP downturns? Do they have an effect on the NBA’s attendance?

It’s difficult to say, but looking at the numbers for the past two years, there is a very strong relationship between the decrease in GDP and the decrease in NBA attendance. (See enlarged chart below)


More than the relationship between the league and GDP, these charts show us that the league has essentially stagnated since 1997. In the decade since the strike which wiped out the 1999 season, the league has registered either negative or marginally better attendance figures every season.

As an illustration of this, from 1980 until 1999 the NBA posted a yearly attendance increase of more than 2% no fewer than twelve times. Do you know how many times they have matched that number since then?

Zero.

Which goes back to my point that the league is at a standstill. As I see it, there are two possibilities for the current set-up: Continued stagnation or decline. With the recession in full swing, it seems much more likely to me that – at least for the time being – decline is the more likely option. For those who wonder why the NBA is working so hard internationally to “grow the game” (and, yes, I, too, despise that phrase), perhaps this sheds some light. Perhaps the NBA has realized that any future growth for their sport will have to come outside the US borders, and that the American populace just doesn’t have any room in its belly for more sports.

[Data for this story was culled from the Bureau of Economic Analysts and the Association for Professional Basketball Research.]