Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Reducing NBA Games could help overall revenue

Why is the NFL so much more successful than the NBA?  Is Football really a more followed sport than Basketball in this country?

Last season all 30 NFL teams made a profit, where according to the owners, only 8-10 NBA teams did so (out of the same 30).

So let's first look at the NFL and find out why that league is so successful that their only major lockout was solved without even training camp being canceled.  The truth is we likely don't have to look very far.

The NFL stands out from the NBA in particular because of two factors: the infrequency of games played and the 'team' concept.

The NFL receives high ratings mainly due to the fact that most teams only play once a week, each game is thus vital, and cities need to generate overall less sales to see sell outs for a complete season.  Meanwhile in the NBA, teams play 82 games with sometimes as many as 20 coming on back to backs.  Not only is not every game vital, but at least for around 25% of the season teams are not playing their full effort at times due to the games being back to back.

The NBA won't be able to be 'team' like the NFL as only 5 players play on the court at one time and the individual marketing is what has rose the NBA game from its depths in the 70s.

In order to increase overall attention, fan fare, and overall revenue, reducing the amount of games from 82 to around 68 would ensure no back to backs be played, and each team playing about 3 games a week.

Here's how it could work.

Each NBA team would automatically get one weekend night (either Friday night, Saturday night, or Sunday night) at home every week with another two games to be played that same week, with at least one being on a week day night and more than half being on the other weekend night.

For example, the Sixers would play in Philly Sunday night, in Boston on Wednesday night, followed by either in Philly or somewhere else that Friday night.  The only time an NBA team would not play two weekend nights is if they played on Saturday night.

What would this do?

Well, a drawback could be that majority of NBA games would be played Sunday night, Wednesday night, and Friday night in such a method.

Is that really a bad thing?

First off, that's kind of the way it is right now.  Most of the Saturday night, Monday night, Tuesday night or Thursday night games (even though they are on TNT) usually happen to be back to back for someone involved.

By eliminating those back to backs you're likely eliminating most games those nights (Sorry TNT, choose a different night).

Bottom line the idea is to limit games to 68, so there's closer competition for the playoffs and games matter more.  The other notion is to limit the back to backs so we don't see NBA teams dogging it on a 4th game in 5 nights etc.

As we learn in the crazy world of supply and demand and economics, sometimes less is more.  Why is New York real estate so high?  It is mainly due to their being 70% rent control buildings, thus more demand for the 30% of supply remaining, and thus extremely high rent in that 30%.

The Yankees also realized this notion.  When they built their new stadium, they decided to put in less seats, but charge more for seats.

Who would this idea help and who would it hurt?  It is true that many of the higher marketed teams like the Lakers or Knicks don't need such a concept since they'd sell out (at least while the Knicks are winning) regardless of whether there are less games or not.  So those teams could charge roughly 10-15% more for tickets.  They'd likely at least duplicate the same revenue as an 82 game season.

But what about the Pacers or Bobcats?  The 68 games would keep them either closer to playoff contention and ensure an appropriate supply to demand ratio which is necessary.

82 games is also extremely a lot considering the Euroleague only plays twice a week.

If the NBA wants to get serious about increasing the BRI (basketball related income) and ensure all teams stay competitive as well, reducing games could be an interesting alternative to look into.

It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes less is indeed more.

No comments:

Post a Comment