Nalod wrote:The ratings and revenue rise over the years is indisputable.
Sorry dude, you're wrong about a ratings rise unless you're referring to a blip from 2010 to 2011. Most of the things you talk about with Stern is mostly managerial stuff. For that, I think Stern was a fine manager for the NBA as far as managing the owners for the financial stability of the league and other administrative stuff. However the NBA Commisioner is also the leader of the sport, and is in control of the overall direction and popularity of the NBA.
While I wouldn't be surprised that revenue is higher, that doesn't mean as much because jerseys, licensing deals, sponsorship, merchandise, luxury boxes, TV rights fees, and tickets are SO much more expensive than they were 15 years ago, so everything from the Globetrotters to WWE and Sesame Street makes more money by the nature of the market, not due to increases in popularity. However the actual popularity of the NBA is drastically down and the percentage of people that watch the NBA since the 2000's versus the 90's is severely down, and that's all David Stern.
The problem is David Stern's marketing model is SOLELY reliant on individual stars determining the popularity of the entire sport. Magic & Bird created the boom in the 80's that Stern was fortunate to be in charge of at the time, and he did nothing at that time that no other commisioner would've done to capitalize on the popularity of those two. Lightning struck again when Michael Jordan came in, Jordan became the biggest star in NBA history and its top draw. One can say Stern had a greater hand in making Jordan so big, as they did things like giving him Dennis Rodman for Will Perdue, and even went so far as to informally introduce "Jordan rules" and "superstar treatment", and even changed the rules to hurt the Knicks in the mid 90's since they were the Bulls toughest opponents.
But instead of having the foresight to realize that waiting for the "next Jordan" isn't a very stable business model and changing things, he continued to look for the "next Jordan". First a laughable attempt with Charles Barkley and then a young Kobe Bryant. And what happens when you try to build a league around an individual star again? Lightning stops striking. As talented as Kobe was, he was extremely unlikable and was involved in a very public sexual assault case.
The overall problem with the NBA is, their strategy to appeal to fans is to push, literally a handful of teams and a couple of players nationally. Stern's vision of the NBA isn't 30 attractions geographically spaced throughout the land, its a vision of everyone in America wearing Kobe Bryant and LeBron James' jerseys like they did with the Bulls in the 90's. It's way too narrow, and at some point, fans see enough "superstar treatment" and realize if they aren't into one of those handpicked teams its a losing proposition. And the ratings reflect this.
Jordan NBA Finals avg ratings (rounded): 16, 14, 18, 12, 14, 17, 17, 19
Post-Jordan NBA Finals avg ratings (rounded): 11,12,12,12,10,6,12,8,8,6,9,8,10,10
From the Jordan era, the lowest rated finals were the Knicks-Rockets in '94 (Jordan retired) at 12.4 which is still greater than any finals (featuring Stern's handpicked stars and teams) since 1998, which shows that David Stern has yet to do anything to make the NBA anywhere as popular as it was, even in their first year without Jordan 1994.
And a lot of the problems have to do with the format of the NBA which is all David Stern. In the 12 seasons since 2000, the NBA has seen exactly 5 teams win the NBA championship (Only 2 of those teams were first time champs Mavs/Heat. During this time ratings hovered around 11-12 for five years before it dropped to around 6- 10 ever since. I'd call that a decline under any criteria. The past two NBA Finals which cracked a 10 avg rating for the first time since 2004, featured LeBron James (individual star) and the Lakers-Celtics (feud from the past). The same Stern formula, yet still was destroyed by the Knicks-Rockets from 1994.
David Stern has completely failed to create any consistent interest in the NBA anywhere close what it was in the 90's and 80's. He continues to rely on individual star power and building the entire NBA around 2-3 teams, which has clearly failed.
Meanwhile since 2000, the NFL has seen 9 teams win the championship, 5 of which had never won the championship ever. And the ratings for this show has consistently increased every year by about a million. If there was doubt about the SB being an indicator of anything, note the NFL playoffs have broken records every season in recent years as well as primetime games. This is not a coincidence.
While the NFL has stars and superstar teams, they are not dependent on them to create popularity of the league like the NBA has done. Not only that, the NFL is infinitely better at creating stars than the NBA. The majority of casual NFL followers could name at least one player on at least 20 of the teams in the league. Honestly how many casual NBA followers could name a player on more than 6 or 7 teams?
And part of the problem is the Playoff system. In 2001, the NFL re-aligned and created their modern system where the division winners automatically get 8 of the 12 spots (as opposed to 6 like before) in the playoffs. This system makes it far easier for upsets to occur, and for underdog teams to win. I'm not debating the merits of this system but the results have created MUCH more variety and unpredictability in the championship teams and builds many superstars. Meanwhile David Stern went so far as to change the system in the 2000's to increase the first round to seven games SOLELY so his handpicked Kobe Laker team (which was prone to upsets that year) would have a better chance of getting out of the first round. God forbid a new team gets a chance to shine. This is what David Stern is about, limiting the teams that can represent the NBA as champions.
As for international expansion, while that is a sound business move, it means zip to America. When people in the US stopped caring about Michael Jackson and the WWE, they targeted international too, because they need money, but THE last time America was ever affected by the popularity of something outside of America was the Beatles. I'm not saying that's right (as it speaks more of American arrogance), but the NBA being big in Croatia or China does not make it more popular in the US, as evidenced by the consistent drop of ratings since 1998, when the NBA began to market itself stronger overseas. Yao Ming's popularity in China was amusing to Americans, but I defy anyone to supply a video of anyone saying "Oh, my God, this (blank) is SO popular in China I just have to see him!"
The bottom line is the David Stern formula of basing the NBA around 3-4 teams and 1-2 superstars is failed business model relying far too much on the planets aligning and the right guy coming at the right time. Maybe Jeremy Lin IS that guy (I certainly hope so), but it is a stupid way to build and promote a major league sport. The NBA isn't dying or anything, but until they change things, the NBA will continue to wait for "superman" to crash on Earth from Krypton like he did in the 80's and 90's and that's not a smart way to do things. Just like someone said earlier, good riddance to David Stern, and hopefully the new NBA commisioner can model things more like the NFL, rather than the Stern NBA.
