It was not so long ago that the NBA was one team deep.
The very moment Michael Jordan retired from basketball in January 1999 (not counting his two AfterMASH seasons with the Wizards), the Lakers became the most important team in the league. At a time when the NBA was desperate to find an adequate replacement for Jordan’s Bulls, they offered the right combination of star-power (Kobe Bryant and initially Shaquille O’Neal) and market size (second only to New York City). Almost every week featured the Lakers in NBC’s prized 5:30 PM ET timeslot, and later ABC’s less-prized 3:30 PM window, as did almost every NBA Finals. Though they were never able to move the needle as well as the Bulls, they were a far better draw than the other teams of the era — the ratings poison Spurs and middling attractions like the Kings, Mavericks, Suns and Heat.
At one point in 2004, then-NBA commissioner David Stern gave the infamous quote that the ideal NBA match-up was “the Lakers versus the Lakers.” Even if that comment became fodder for the NBA’s many half-baked conspiracy theorists, the ratings backed him up. By 2010, the Lakers had played in six of the seven most-watched NBA Finals since 1998 and 13 of the 14 most-watched finals games since ABC acquired rights in 2003.
All of that changed dramatically in 2010. The Lakers won their last title in June, with Game 7 of the NBA Finals earning the top audience for any NBA telecast since 1998. Less than a month later, LeBron James announced he would depart the Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat, kicking off an unhinged national backlash that transformed the league in many ways — including as a television draw.
Suddenly, the Heat were the biggest draw in the league, generating the kind of overwrought scrutiny at which the sports media excels. It was not just the Heat, however. Miami’s many rivals also began to attract attention. Derrick Rose and the Bulls became a strong television draw, and as did small-market Oklahoma City and star Kevin Durant — eagerly crafted as the heroic foil to James. The Lakers were still a big draw, but their absence was no longer disastrous.
As this was taking place, the Lakers began to decline. A surprising sweep at the hands of the Mavericks ended any last hope of a Kobe/LeBron finals in 2011, and a 4-1 drubbing at the hands of the Thunder the following year indicated their time as a contender was over. The acquisition of Dwight Howard and Steve Nash in 2012 put them back onto the national scene, but chemistry issues and injuries resulted in a first round sweep at the hands of the Spurs. They have not made the playoffs since.
During the Lakers’ previous swoon, from 2005-07, NBA Finals ratings never reached beyond the 8.5 average for Heat/Mavericks in 2006. A grand total of two games during that period managed to earn a double-digit rating: Game 7 of Spurs/Pistons in 2005 (11.9) and Game 6 of Heat/Mavericks (10.1). It was clear that the NBA was a mediocre draw at best without the Lakers.
The Lakers’ current downfall has also had an impact on the ratings. The league has been in decline for the past three years, and while much of that has to do with lingering disinterest after James finally won a title in 2012, it also has to do with the Lakers’ fall from national relevance. Even in pronounced decline, however, the NBA is still much stronger than in the mid-2000s — and the NBA Finals has been as strong a draw as at any point in the post-Jordan era.
Four of the five NBA Finals since the Lakers’ last appearance have averaged a double-digit rating, with this year’s Warriors/Cavaliers series the highest rated since 2001 and the most-watched since 1998. Today, non-Laker series account for four of the eight most-watched NBA Finals since 1998 and 11 of the 15 most-watched finals games since ABC acquired rights. There is of course the enormous caveat that each of those five finals has involved James, whether on the Heat or the Cleveland Cavaliers.
It may simply be the case that the NBA went from one team deep to one player deep.
Then again, the hero-villain nature of the LeBron James narrative has had its benefits for the league. The Lakers’ would-be foils never quite captured the national imagination, but James’ rivals have become major stars in their own right. There was Rose prior to his spate of injuries, Durant prior to his spate of injuries, and now the Warriors’ Stephen Curry. Instead of the Lakers vs. the Lakers, the NBA’s ideal matchup is now LeBron vs. another rival superstar. While that is still not a recipe for prolonged health, it is a step in the right direction.
A decade ago, one would have thought that five years of Laker mediocrity would be a disaster for the NBA. Instead, the franchise that was once the life preserver for a sinking league is increasingly an afterthought.
