Like I said in the NHL rolling business thread, you can't be surprised with this development. Pound for pound -- or game for game, I suppose -- the NHL is presenting a superior live experience to the NBA. We can bemoan many frustrating aspects of NHL hockey -- the point inflation, the cap-imposed parity, the inherent randomness of the game -- but when you add all those up, you get a highly competitive product that's fun to watch. And whereas the NBA has moved to a business model of Appreciating Greatness from the comfort of your couch whithersoever it may be, NHL fandom will now and forever be about your team and wanting your team to win, and generally that's going to be a team in a city close to you (or as close as one can reasonably be, in the cases of Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg). While NHL telecasts have improved by leaps and bounds with the advent of 16:9 aspect and HDTV, the consensus even from casual fans and initiates is still that there's nothing like seeing hockey live. Can the same be said about basketball? College basketball, maybe, but certainly not the NBA. What can I get at a live NBA game that I can't get at home? I think of Dan's Rovellian expression of wonderment with going to a Bulls game: "we had a great time, and everything was sponsored!" So you get all the commercials and none of the Charles Barkley? I'll stay home.
Now, is trumpeting superior live attendance in 2014 just winning a race that's already been run, like having the best radio ratings in a world where everyone just uses Pandora and Spotify? Perhaps. But even though the NBA has chosen to be a popular TV show and taken the money from it, can it be good for the long-term health of the league to have all these moribund teams in dark, empty arenas? Sure, everyone's watching Thunder-Heat in GUANGZHOOOOOOOUUU, and sure, the Milwaukee Bucks and Orlando Magic get their slices of that pie, but what are they going to do about the fact that they still have 41 home games to sell tickets to and 70+ to locally telecast, games which have been all but totally devalued not only as live events to do but even something to watch because the teams are so hopeless? How much longer can you go on having a league that's such an exercise in futility across the board?
The scary part is that this is sort of what the NHL wants. When these hedge-fund crooks bought the Phoenix Coyotes, they made a big show out of telling everyone "we're not buying the Coyotes. We're buying one-thirtieth of the NHL." You don't say that if you just bought the Maple Leafs, you say that if all you want to do is get fat on TV contracts and revenue-sharing subsidy checks before doing a quick flip on your investment.
But for now, though, the NHL is beating the NBA at the arena business and they earned it -- I'd say it's about 40% their success and 60% the NBA's failure. The really stunning part is that this is all happening while the NHL willfully self-handicaps with an ill-advised footprint. If the league had stuck to its midwestern/northeastern/Canadian bedrock and not overextended itself into warm-weather transplant towns, they'd be slaughtering the NBA at the gate. Sub out its weak links for teams in your picks from Quebec City, Hartford, Seattle, Milwaukee, and Hamilton/K-W, and there would be no contest.
_________________ Molly Lambert wrote: The future holds the possibility to be great or terrible, and since it has not yet occurred it remains simultaneously both.
|