The NBA is the most boring sport in America
>> Tuesday
I guess this post is a brief follow-up to Nate's post that actually demonstrates some level of interest in what is now the most boring sport in America.
The NBA sucks. Stories about big trades (Shaq, Gasol) and 'controversial' rumblings by 'controversial' players ('Sheed saying he doesn't want to cancel his vacation to play as an All-Star reserve) seem to be the only interesting thing about the sport. In fact, as a casual NBA fan, you hardly even hear about what teams are playing well, what star players are blossoming, etc. Instead, most of the NBA headlines are about these little dramatic side plots. And after watching parts of the Lakers-Heat game on Sunday, I found out why: The action on the court has become so deplorably boring that people have to talk about the side stories or else the league seems totally inconsequential.
I know I'm not saying anything new when I argue that the NBA regular season has become a joke. But really, I saw some terrible basketball on Sunday. I know the league has been trying for years to make the game more offense-friendly, but in reality, it has just become sloppy. Here are my proposed rule changes to clean up the atrocious mess that you see these days.
1. Seriously, start enforcing traveling and 3-seconds calls. A no-brainer.
2. Subtract a point for a turnover. Sure, a turnover should be a penalty enough in itself, but these guys really don't care if they throw errant, lazy passes. Penalize them more!
3. Eliminate the shot clock. A 24-second shot clock? I don't know what games were like in the pre-shot clock era, but the game has changed enough now that we don't need a shot clock. Teams consistently jack up shots with only 5 to 7 seconds off the shot clock. It now needs to be extended or eliminated. It's just not fun to watch teams trade (and miss) open 18-footers every ten seconds.
4. Reverse the defensive 3-second rule. The defensive 3-second rule makes no sense to me. Let a center camp out on defense and force offensive penetrators to be a little more creative and work a little harder for their baskets.
5. Let them handcheck! Bring back the handcheck. There's nothing wrong with a little push here and there.
6. Shorten the length of the game, shorten the regular season, shorten the playoffs.
In a somewhat unrelated note, I can't believe that two officials in two different college hoops games last night called a foul with less than 0.5 seconds to go. I'm not suggesting that the final <1.0 seconds of a ball game should be a free-for-all without consequence for fouling. But come on, in situations like that, there's so much bumping and chaos, just let them play. What a shame for the Nova men and Scarlett Nappy-Headed Hos.
Posts
8 comments:
I didn't catch the Nappy-Headed Hos game, but I did see that 'Nova-G'Town ending. What a joke.
Even though I do still enjoy watching the NBA (even in the regular season), it's certainly not perfect. Number one rule change on my list: Take a page out of the irnonically characterized-by-Americans-as-pussy-sport soccer, and penalize the flop!
Even though I can't see it happening, I kinda like the idea of shot-clock abolishment. When they went to the 8-second time-line rule and the 14 seconds following a dead ball on a retained possession a few years back, it was supposed to create more possesssions and therefore more scoring. I think what the NBA failed to realize at the time was that people wanted better offense, which is not necessarily the same thing as more scoring. I think you're right in that a shorter shot clock just makes for bad shots when the initial attack fails. It's not like we're talking about high school where--pardon my bigotry--Whitebread Prep might play four corners and hold the ball for a whole quarter against Ghetooballer High because they know they're overmatched. I don't think the shot clock really matters until the final two minutes, so maybe they should shut it off til then.
Getting rid of the shot clock is the worst idea ever proposed by anyone ever.
If you guys think NBA basketball is boring to watch now (I disagree with that assessment), try watching the four corners offense run as soon as a team gets an 8-point lead.
I recently went to one of my brother's high school games that was a closely-contested game, and they went into the fourth quarter down by four. The other team came out in the fourth and played keep away for the entire period, ruining what could have been a great game.
If you think the shot clock should only be implemented in the final two minutes, then there will be no such thing as a fourth-quarter comeback because any team that builds a double-digit lead will run the clock down to 2:00, at which point a comeback is not possible.
The shot clock is the best invention in basketball, and to suggest its removal is ridiculous.
In fact, the only one of Paul's suggested changes that makes sense is to shortening everything, which would never get done because of the money involved in ticket and concession sales.
But here's the important point: The NBA don't need help from any Bergls. Their ratings this season are sky-rocketing, and Mark Cuban thinks it will be the best NBA season ever.
Average attendance for the NBA is actually down this season compared to last season. (4%, nothing to worry about, but it's more or less in a statistical tie with the NHL).
However, more NBA teams are averaging full-capacity than the NHL. Where the NBA loses out to the NHL is in the teams at the bottom. The teams at the bottom in the NHL (Blackhawks) still draw relatively well at the gate, but the teams that bring up the rear in the NBA don't enjoy that same kind of loyalty.
It brings up a suggestion that I have not heard here. I'm not advocating it, but in a league where yes, role players are important, but it's a lot easier for a superstar to carry his team than in other sports, is it worth considering contraction?
Reducing the size of the league from say, 30 to 26 or 24 teams could dramatically increase the quality of play, given the increased depth that benches would carry. The only losers under this scenario are the guys who are barely good enough to make an NBA roster and fans of teams in cities that apparently don't want them. The NBA would lose a bit of its national footprint in TV rights, but a more exciting league might help them recoup it.
Yeah, contraction might not be a bad idea. I hate to say that, because Milwaukee has to be relatively high on the list.
But as an NBA fan, my intrigue in a game is directly affected by the players involved. So bumping the bottom-level talent into the D-league wouldn't hurt.
Also, I don't know about game attendance, but TV ratings are way up. Maybe that has something to do with the ridiculous storms this winter.
Because I was curious and because I finished my reading for tomorrow early to watch MU destroy Seton Hall, I did a little attendance research on the NBA to see who the bottom-end teams were. A quick look on Basketball reference gave attendances for the last four completed seasons (last three for the Bobcats for obvious reasons).
The magic line appears to be about 16,000 fans. Head south of 16k, and you start to see teams where you'd say "Yea, I guess I'd expect that."
Over the past four seasons, 6 teams drew an average of less than 16k fans per game: Memphis, Houston, Orlando, Miami, Charlotte, and New Jersey. The Bucks are North of the line at
16,293, still the lowest-drawing team in their division.
But outside of that, everyone is pretty closely bunched together. 19 teams draw between 16,400 and 21,000, a difference of not even 5,000 fans.
The only common thread I could find is that of the six sub-16k teams, is 5 of them are in the South (football country?) And that four of them are teams in locations that have come about since the NBA exploded both on the scene and in terms of its national footprint since the late 1980s, so there's not much history, and it's mostly history of failure (only two NBA Finals appearances among the new teams).
I'm kinda shocked to see Houston and Miami in that grouping. You'd think winning a championship would boost attendence.
But I'm even more shocked that Atlanta is NOT in that group, since Atlanta is famously bad at supporting their teams, and the Hawks have been especially horrible lately.
Wow. My eyes aren't talking to my brain. You're absolutely right, Nate.
Miami's average attendance over the last four seasons is above the 16k line (18,725). I transposed Atlanta (14,729) and Miami from the Excel spreadsheet. Atlanta's average attendance is the lowest in the league, a fact I find entirely not surprising.
Anybody else hear David Stern's plan to add 5 teams in Eroupe?
Post a Comment