There are two ways to look at the ratings for this year's NBA Finals. Unsurprisingly, one's perspective appears to depend on who's signing their paychecks.
The NBA and ESPN/ABC are touting the sizable increase between last season's numbers and the first two contests between the Celtics and Warriors. Game 1's ratings were up 37 percent year-to-year, as the NBA's official website notes, and Game 2 was up 24 percent over the second game of last year's Bucks-Suns affair.
The increase is even more stark when comparing Celtics-Warriors with the Lakers-Heat bubble championship, which was played right in the middle of a divisive presidential election and the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. This year's Game 2 saw a 71 percent ratings increase.
Though in fairness, Game 2 of Lakers-Heat was played the same night President Donald Trump was hospitalized with Covid.
That leads us to the more pessimistic interpretation of the numbers for Celtics-Warriors. This is the first NBA Finals in three years played during its normal slot, early to mid June. While Sunday's Game 2 — it averaged a 6.2 rating and 11.91 million viewers on ABC — was the most-watched Game 2 in a couple of years, it was the third least-watched Game 2 of the NBA Finals since the underwhelming 2007 series between the Spurs and Cavaliers.
In comparison to Warriors-Raptors from 2019, the numbers are horrible. Game 1 was down 19 percent in the ratings and Game 2 declined by 23 percent.
That's especially disconcerting, since the 2019 Finals featured a Canadian team. Viewership in Canada doesn't count towards U.S. household ratings.
Throwing out the last two unusual years — last season's Finals were played over July 4 — the Celtics and Warriors are struggling to gain traction compared to other Finals matchups. That's surprising on the surface: Golden State is the NBA's best dynasty since Jordan's Bulls, and the Celtics are one of the league's premier franchises.
TV ratings throughout the NBA playoffs have been strong as well. Viewership was at an eight-year high through the semifinals.
So what's the deal with this series' underperformance so far? Here are three possible explanations:
The bad TV climate:
The most systemic explanation for the lagging NBA Finals numbers is probably the biggest reason for their decline. The primetime TV audience has plummeted even since 2019, when streaming was hardly in its infancy. Overall primetime viewership levels are down 26 percent from where they were three years prior.
There's been a 15 percent decline in pay-TV subscriptions since June 2019.
That means every show on network or cable TV is drawing from a smaller pool of people than before. Traditional pay-TV providers are estimated to have lost around 6 million subscribers each year from 2019-21.
But the dwindling audience doesn't entirely explain the drop. Some sports leagues are seeing an increase in viewership year-over-year, even in this unfriendly climate. The NFL, for example, posted its highest viewership numbers since 2015.
As mentioned previously, the previous rounds of the NBA playoffs were the most-watched in nearly a decade.
Is there something specific about the Celtics and Warriors that may be failing to draw people in?
Game 2's blowout
It doesn't help that Game 2 was over midway through the third quarter. The Warriors dominated the Celtics at the start of the second half Sunday and won by 19 points.
The relatively blank pedigrees of Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown could play a role, too. They're still not star players on the level of Steph Curry, Kevin Durant or Giannis Antetokounmpo. When the game became lopsided, people may not have felt compelled to tune in.
But Game 1 wasn't lopsided. In fact, the Celtics staged an epic fourth quarter comeback on their way to an improbable victory. Yet, it still suffered an 11 percent viewership drop Warriors-Raptors Game 1 in 2019.
Sociological forces can shape TV habits. That's why one of the reasons for the early sliding ratings could go beyond the court.
POLITICS
Most of the time, I laugh whenever crybabies on Twitter threaten to boycott sporting events because players' political views don't align with theirs. But in today's insanely polarized times, maybe there's something to that idea.
The New York Post's Ryan Glasspiegel raised the possibility that ESPN play-by-play man Mark Jones, who filled in for Mike Breen during Games 1 and 2, was driving away right-wing viewers due to his outwardly liberal politics.
Here are a couple of headlines on Clay Travis' OutKick that describe Jones (I'm not posting the links):
"ESPN re-signs bigot Mark Jones, gives him a raise"
"Far-left nut job Mark Jones calling Game 7 was a bad look for ESPN and the NBA"
Perhaps a small number of people wanted to prove a point and boycott Jones' broadcasts. Tribal politics are becoming increasingly synonymous with people's identities on both sides. For some, politics may outweigh NBA fandom.
The NBA has also become a punching bag on the right, with pundits and lawmakers spending years lambasting the league for its cozy business relationship with China. In some households, the NBA's brand may be sullied.
That likely doesn't explain the full double-digit ratings drops, but it could play a role.
————-
Deshaun Watson coverage will ramp up: Deshaun Watson's tenuous status with the NFL has been an underreported story all offseason. The assumption seemed to be that he would play this season, despite the now-24 women accusing him of sexual misconduct.
That may no longer be the case. The New York Times recently published a bombshell report detailing the extent of Watson's disturbing behavior. Watson met at least 66 women for massages over a 17-month period, far more than previously known. While at least 15 have issued statements of support, 30 have either sued or were identified by the plaintiffs' lawyers.
The NFL can't open the season with Watson under center. He might not be able to step onto the field at all. All coverage of the Browns should be viewed through that lens.
Draymond as the next Barkley?: Draymond Green is agitating on the court. But he's money from the podium.
His latest salvo was directed towards players from the 80s and 90s who boast about the physicality in their day. "Y'all were getting bullied," Green reminded them.
While Green's remarks dismissing Boston's Game 1 win were harsh, they wound up being true: Al Horford, Marcus Smart and Derrick White didn't replicate their incredible performances in Game 2.
It's fitting that Green has already made guest appearances on "Inside the NBA." There will be a seat for him when he's done playing.
Patriots rebuke homophobia: Kudos to the Patriots for rebuking homophobic fans on Twitter this week. In celebration of Pride Month, the Patriots illuminated Gillette Stadium with the rainbow flag.
They encountered some pushback on social media, to which they responded: "Our comment section is monitored and there is no room for hate."
Now that's a championship kind of stand.
