The truth is, it's just not that simple. Over the last 30 years, the NBA has enjoyed periods of tremendous popularity, and periods of general indifference from the casual fan. Conventional wisdom (which I agree with, in this case) would rank the last 3 decades in the following order of overall popularity: '91-'00, '81-'90, '01-'10. Taking a look at what happened in the league, not only is it difficult to say parity helped popularity, there's actually an argument that parity hurt popularity.
MAKING THE PLAYOFFS
Making the playoffs generally isn't like making the postseason in any other major sport, because upsets in NBA playoff series are so much rarer relative to other sports. But, while not everyone can win a title, at least a fan can say they were part of the action. Look at the data: every single franchise had a playoff berth in the last 10 years, including the Clippers, Warriors, Raptors, Wizards, even the expansion Bobcats (note: franchises started in a given decade are removed from the total teams number, seems fairer). The other decades can't come close to that. And, just as a counter to the "more than half the league makes the playoffs now" you're muttering under your breath: from 1984-1988, 69% of the league made the playoffs, way more than the 53% today, and nobody ever grouses about it.
MAKING THE CONFERENCE FINALS
Making the conference finals is a fair measure of how much team success gets spread around the league. If a team made it through 2 playoff rounds, it's most likely a good team. Therefore, franchises that made it during a decade probably had a good product to sell fans. In terms of total teams, the '00s are the clear winner here. And even on percentage terms, the most popular decade in the league gave fans the least parity in who they watched in the conference finals.
MAKING THE NBA FINALS
By this measure, the '00s don't stand out as the best in terms of parity, but look how much worse the '80s were. Seriously, think about this: from 1981-1990, the Western Conference gave fans two teams: Houston or the Lakers. That's it. Doesn't seem like a level playing field to me at all. Didn't seem to make the league less popular, though.
WINNING AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP
Well, there just can't be too much volatility in results here. Even college teams manage to make it through a one-and-done, six round tournament more than once in a decade. Again, though, the results seem somewhat clear. The '00s offered the most parity, even when lumping all Lakers titles in one group (which I'm sure Kobe would disagree with). If more franchises won titles in the '00s, and several teams winning is what parity is all about, why weren't the '00s the most popular decade in the NBA's history?
CONCLUSION
Other than the playoff success rate, I doubt there's anything truly groundbreaking in these numbers. Parity does not equal popularity for the NBA. Why? The truth is that the NBA doesn't thrive on the same thing that the NFL does. For whatever reason, casual fans are compelled to watch players, not franchises. And, success alone pales in comparison to a superstar's compelling story. That's probably why the 1998 NBA Finals (rematch of 1997 Bulls-Jazz, but Jordan's last run) were the highest rated ever, and the 2005 Finals (last two NBA champions) were the worst in recent memory.
Will small market teams that can't compete (2011 Kings) be forced to fail and leave behind fanbases? Yes, it's happened in each of the last 3 decades; in fact, it's how the Kings ended up in Sacramento. Will it kill the league? I very much doubt it. If the Patriots and Yankees have proven anything, it's this: Americans watch empires in sports, even if we think they're evil. So, if this is the beginning of the Heat's run, the NBA's probably in a good place from a popularity standpoint. From an entertainment standpoint, I'll enjoy it about as much as I did the '90s... which is to say, less than I enjoyed the last 8 years. Why? I guess I'm just less entertained by a story when I already know how it ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment