Is an OKC vs. IND Finals good for the league?

[Roy H.]

In the short term, bigger markets drive bigger ratings.  But long-term does the NBA gain something from parity and small market teams having a chance at titles?

[Donoghus]

I think it gives fanbases some hope that their small market teams can turn it around and have the ability to make the Finals.  This is where MLB is currently failing (also due in large part to no cap).

It also gives more visibility to guys like SGA & Haliburton and helps grow more league superstars with the casuals.   Ratings are almost sure to suck and the both the league office and ABC/ESPN probably aren't happy but an OKC/IND final isn't all negative.

[Who]

I was watching a youtube video -- I forget who -- who was saying the league doesn't care about ratings at the moment. They got their TV deal. It is an 11 year deal. The ratings are not a priority for the league. They are for the TV companies that have the rights but not the league.

A year ago, before the TV deal was secured, the ratings were a massive issue for the league that impacted every major decision. They were watching the ratings like a hawk. But now they have gotten their TV deal, and given how long it is at 11 years, it is no longer a pressing issue for the league front office.

Interesting points.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Hopefully it allows more people to see and admit that SGA is a foul hunter who gets a highly favorable whistle.

[Vermont Green]

I guess it depends on how you define "good for the league".  If it is near team ratings, probably not.  But I think their goal is more about parity and how with salary restrictions, teams with low salaries and smaller markets can compete.  Less incentive for teams to over pay.  I think this is what it is really about.  With the rules in place, you can compete for a title without being the highest paid team in the league.

Another aspect is that I think OKC and IND (IND still has to win 1 more game vs. NYK) will be an entertaining brand of basketball.  Lots of up and down, back and forth,  Featuring that brand of basketball in the finals is good for the league.  Now if it becomes all about fouls, as some seem to worry (and for good reason), then not so much.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Double post

[ozgod]

I think so. I think it's good to see smaller market teams as actual contenders, even if overall ratings might drop as casual fans who only know about big-name teams like the Celtics, Fakers, Knicks, Warriors, etc tune out. I love Cinderella stories.

[cltc5]

I mean what exactly is left in the nba?  Guys like curry, Lebron, giannis, Durant have all had their moment and/or are at the end of their careers.  Best to put the spotlight on the future now.

[perks-a-beast]

Aside from the fact that it is two very small market teams -- If you plucked the average citizen off the street, they most likely have no idea who Shai Gilgeous-Alexander or Tyrese Haliburton are. Nor do they care. Something about this new generation of superstars does not resonate with the general public. Part of the reason why finals ratings were so high in the 80's and 90's is because you had guys like Jordan, Bird, and Magic who were big time personalities with intriguing back stories and were major box office draws. I think the NBA really needs guys like that now who will generate interest from the normies -- especially since LeBron, Curry, and Durant are on the way out.

[Larry for 3]

I think so. I think it's good to see smaller market teams as actual contenders, even if overall ratings might drop as casual fans who only know about big-name teams like the Celtics, Fakers, Knicks, Warriors, etc tune out. I love Cinderella stories.

The likely lowest rated finals in history good for the league? That?s not what David Stern would say. Then again this is what Adam Silver wants. And he?s been mid at best so?
 

[Goldstar88]

If people aren?t tuning in, then no. The Indiana Fever are drawing more fans than the Pacers.

[Neurotic Guy]

I suppose not, but I have to say I?ve had more interest in these playoffs than I?ve had in a very long time. I should say when the Celtics aren?t a factor. 

I?ve had interest in almost every series and there have been some good ones and some amazing endings. I think that the lack of interest in Indy-OKC will have more to do with it being lopsided talent-wise than it being small  market Indy and OKC.   I?m probably wrong, but I can say for myself that if this was a more even match up I?d be psyched to watch - and with no West Coast game I?d be able to watch.  And tbh I often don?t have much interest in the Finals when the Cs aren?t involved. 

And Indy hasn?t won yet.  I think they will, but if NY wins tonight it?s actually a series. 

[ozgod]

I think so. I think it's good to see smaller market teams as actual contenders, even if overall ratings might drop as casual fans who only know about big-name teams like the Celtics, Fakers, Knicks, Warriors, etc tune out. I love Cinderella stories.

The likely lowest rated finals in history good for the league? That?s not what David Stern would say. Then again this is what Adam Silver wants. And he?s been mid at best so?

It really comes down to how "good for the league" is defined. If it is defined as more teams having a chance to win a championship, irrespective of the size of their TV markets, fan bases or purse strings, meaning more unpredictability and interest in the regular season, then having Indy and OKC in the finals is great. It's a departure from the status quo were the richest teams from the biggest markets tend to dominate playoff appearances because they can attract the best players and have the best chances to retain those players. It vindicates the league's expansion strategy by having more teams that have a chance to win.

On the other hand, if "good for the league" means TV ratings, then obviously any Finals that doesn't include one of the marquee teams, which tend to draw casual or non-basketball fans because "everyone's heard of the Fakers or the Celtics or the Warriors or the Knicks" means less ratings and possibly less interest in the Finals as a whole. In that case, the league would prefer a competition similar to the English Premier League in soccer (where every year the only teams with a chance to win it are Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, or Manchester United), or for a more extreme example, La Liga (where only Barcelona or Real Madrid are serious contenders). The rest of the teams are just there to make up the numbers.

[Phantom255x]

With all the money from gambling sites and everything I don't think they really care anymore. Because even the refs and NBA employees get salaries paid from the revenue those gambling sites generate as well and so many people bet as is so the revenue is astronomical.

Yeah I still believe the refs rig some games and are crooked. But at the same time, the 2021 Finals was Milwaukee vs. Phoenix (not exactly big city vs. big city). Last year, NY had a home Game 7 and a chance to play Boston in the ECF. Instead Indiana won and made it. Even this year, LAL was allowed to lose first round and the Finals could be IND vs. OKC. Feels like a bit of a new era now.

[Kernewek]

With all the money from gambling sites and everything I don't think they really care anymore. Because even the refs and NBA employees get salaries paid from the revenue those gambling sites generate as well and so many people bet as is so the revenue is astronomical.

I think this logic only tracks if we presume that the gambling interest & activity is constant across differently-sized NBA markets, which I don't think is true.

In other words, there will always be the committed gamblers who will wager on the Finals because they can, but you would think the number of casual gamblers - people who might put in $20 on their team or whatever but otherwise don't bet throughout the season - would be higher when big market teams make it to the end, and that is likely to be a substantial difference for the league's bottom line when it comes to the bookmakers.