Pablo Torre Finds Out - The Sporting Class: The Truth Behind the NBA Ratings Decline

Episode Date: February 14, 2025

Sure, fewer people are watching basketball games these days. But the NBA has 76 billion reasons why that doesn't matter. John Skipper, David Samson and Pablo do the math on Adam Silver's real State of the Union — and why a rival, LIV-style league would never succeed. Plus: the goosing of Super Bowl numbers, the ballad of Monty the Giant Schnauzer... and the untold origin story of a certain award-winning sports business podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Pablo Torre finds out. I am Pablo Torre, and today we're going to find out what this sound is. I'm not going to eat at Little Caesars because I love Eugene Levy's eyebrows. Right after this ad. You're listening to Draft King's Network. Different vibes I'm getting from you guys right now. John has been singing. David is frantically trying to disentangle himself from a coil of wires.

Well, no, I have a system before I start. I started recording something and I was unable to do it because I got distracted prior to recording so I'm not on my spot. My chair isn't the right level. My IFB's in the wrong side of my jacket and there's no table for my water. So I'm not feeling great at the moment, but I'm going to start again. You're going to soldier through because that's the kind of guy you are. Well, when you're award winning, you got a soldier through. Are we celebrating ourselves here?

I think it's worth mentioning. I don't even know if John knows because we sent him a text. and he didn't even respond. This is how this sausage is made. We win awards for the sausage, and John doesn't even respond to the text in which we say, guess what our sausage just won, the best sports business sausage award.

What was the runner-up? It's a great question. There were a bunch of good shows, actually. Don't be deprecating. Did you just suggest that not defecate on the show? No, deprecates. Thank you. You want to get that clear? That does bring us, though, to the origin of the name of our show, which is, I am always a little startled to remember that we are named after the dog show, which also just happened.

Well, it's a play on words in that we are here conducting a discussion about the business of sports, which you could argue probably happens in sports management classes around the. country, and you might call that the sporting class. And it happens that it coincides with a classification of dogs that are by far the most wonderful dogs. The sporting class, the beagle, the hound, the blue-tick hound. That's the cuddliest group. It's the best group. And so we're, and sporting class is the best in class. So it has all those associations. By the way, I do believe I came up with the name, so I get to say how what it represents with the cooperation and collaboration of my two friends. There was no cooperation or collaboration. There was not.

I just said this is the name. I don't know why you're saying that. I just showed up here, and I was like, I guess this is a word called. It's true. But I told you. And everybody agreed. Here's what we'll do, David. And we had a great picture of me and you with two dogs.

With two dogs. I had a beagle. And I forget what dog. I had a, like, last. You guys did a photo shoot? No. It was a drawing that never found the light of day because your representative wanted you to be in it. And there was no rule.

Which is a good idea. I want to find out what that picture looks like. We'll put that on the YouTube channel. It's pretty good. I'm jealous that I can get illustrated with Monty and a Dines Schnauzer or whatever the f*** it is. I've yet to pick a sporting dog, right? With a sporting class. So you said a blue tick.

You had to go collie, more court collie. So what's on the table for me? Australia. Everything out, the field. Hound. Hound. You don't know what that looks like to you. Of course.

Those eyes? Those ears. Those ears. I don't like dog shows, don't like dogs, and I actually did not want to be the double entendre of the dog situation, and John was resolute. It's out of all the decisions he makes during the course of his career, it's as though he latched on to this like a dog to a moment. No, no, it's like a dog to a bone.

Wow. Thank you, John. Nicely done. Nicely done. Well, you know, there are, it's not the first thing. Anybody who works for me would tell you that I frequently suggest that there is one answer to a question, and that's the one we're going to coalesce. And so the issue was that we're a with.

Yes. We're a with? We're a with. We work with him. Ah. The thought was when this was happening, it was for him. And I tried to explain the dynamic was that we were becoming a with. John was not yet prepared for the whiff.

Well, just not on the naming. Like, we're the Pips. Well, no, no, just on the naming of it, you were the Pips, yes. Gladys Knight, it's Gladys Knight and the Pips. I did not make this. It's a sporting class. We're all sporty, right? Collie's an excellent choice.

Lassie, excellent. That's right. Thank you, John. David has rescued various people from the bottom of Wells. Metaphorical. Metaphorically. I went to the Javitt Center, by the way, not for the proper dog show, but for a Meet the Breeds event.

I had a Sunday, and I had Violet, who was almost five, and I took her to go see and meet the breeds with a friend and his kid. My favorite part, as you go down this giant cavernous convention hall, is they have all the posters, John, and they say, here's the blue tick hound or whatever, here's the, whatever, the Lhasa Apso, and each of them, they have a format. Each of them has three adjectives. It's like, friendly, dedicated. Uh, com.

Smelly. But they're all positive adjectives. And so you have to read into which ones mean this dog is a dick. And so it's like insistent. Yappy. Yappy. Is that positive? I doubt Yappy's one of the, uh, four adjectives.

Is that a, is that a gerdive? I think Yappi's a little pejorative. Has a system for an IFB. The Yappy, I think as the connotation. of a little annoying. You wouldn't say that dog is yappy. Right. My cousin is yappy.

It's not a positive thing. Detail-oriented. I've been called yappy. I was in grade school, middle school, high school. It does not completely strain credibility that in your life at some point, somebody might have suggested you are yappy. I think it's a size issue, though, John. I was going to say, among the other connotations of yappy,

is it's like a little dog. Yeah. Like couldn't hop on a curb kind of a thing. I mean, it's like a chihuahua. Chihuahua is yappy. A teacup, what's it? A teacup something? A teacup, uh, that's a breed, right?

Teacup, uh... Where do the dogs defecate at the Javitt Center? Just to bring this back to... Is there? Because I took the bar at the Javitt Center. It's a very... You took the bar exam? Yeah, that's at the Javid Center,

not with dogs around. And I'm picturing sort of there's bathrooms, and I recall that because you had to have a proctor go with you, were you to do that back in those days? A proctoratologist. You're saying that we cheat on what the rule against perpetuities is. You're saying a handler had to walk you to the bathroom. Well, that's not a good way to put it, Pablo.

I don't think you want a handler to walk you to the bathroom. That's it. That's enough. Who is a proctorologist. Coco doesn't like penis jokes. Coco has jumped in. No, no. So thread in that we're not going to win a second consecutive best sports business board podcast.

Wait, where else are you going to get, get this kind of breakdown of the English language on a sporting show? I'm ready to start. You're ready to yeah. I think we should do one of my favorite exercises with you guys, which is a bit of press release post-mortem. The Super Bowl has been declared the most watched Super Bowl and therefore the most watched anything in, I guess, American history, human history. single event. Single event. The numbers, despite the blowout, just to give you guys the scene here, Fox set a Super Bowl viewership record, according to various releases, of 126 million viewers for the Eagles Chiefs

matchup, passing the record of 123.7 million set last year for Chiefs 49ers. And there are some bits of fine print underneath how we got to this number. But is that number correct? Is that a fair announcement? Boy, I hope, John, you follow my lead here and agree with me. There's no way to prove one way or the other that that is the correct number. I'll start with that macro statement, and let's see if we're still together. It is accurate that that is not an exact measurement.

They're not looking at literal signals. There are in some cases, but some of this remains a sampling technique, which estimates the number of people who watch. is who I think is directionally correct? I do. Do I think it's possible? It was the most watched in the United States Super Bowl ever? I assume wouldn't surprise me if that's right. And when somebody said it's the most watched single event ever, it's the most watched domestic event, right? Yes, U.S. single event. The U.S. Super Bowl is a fraction of the worldwide audience for the World Cup final, which is billion, something. It reminds me of that famous New Yorker illustration of the view from 8th Avenue.

Steinberg. It's just called View of New York. John, you may not be surprised to learn that I walked into David's house and are you okay with me saying this? It seems late now, doesn't it? I walked in and... Yeah, I'm actually going to ask, I'm actually going to instruct you as an employee that you must now disclose. That's right. The rest of this anecdote. I've sniffed it out like a bloodhound. and this illustration.

It's a good choice, by the way. Bloodhound would be a good choice. But you're familiar with this illustration. It's basically the world beyond Manhattan, basically. View of the world. And it's basically... From New York, you've seen the image. It's basically whatever is over there, the world's over here.

And I walked into David's abode, and I saw that, and I was like, oh, you have a print of this. And he said... It's a great picture. Uh-huh. You said? That yes, that is from the cover of the New York. New Yorker magazine. It's a story.

Stahl Stimberg is the artist, and it's a beautiful thing to look at. But you have the one. Are you not, okay, now, are you weird about being robbed now for this? No, no, but that it's, so there's not, there are a few different sizes of the original, but I do have one that I'm very proud to have acquired back when my remuneration more reflected my skill level. And it is a piece of art that has stood the test of time, mostly because I love to live with it, but also because it is an iconic symbol that's hard to find.

The point being that when it comes to ratings and America versus the world, everything else is over there, we here are measuring our own... Well, that's always how it is. Yeah, I think that's fair. I don't think I just was clarifying that it remains an overwhelmingly domestic event. I want to get to why this number has some holes we can we can poke at here, right? Because before, remind us guys, before Nielsen, I believe, before, I guess from 2017 to

2020, Nielsen was measuring out-of-home viewing separately, right? And then there was a change, John. This was, we've talked about this before, but just to remind people what happened, what did happen? Well, a slightly, and we've talked about this before, this is consistent with what I've said before, which is, remember, the companies doing the ratings are in business with the companies televising the event. They both have interest in the numbers going up and being as big as they can. And it's been harder and harder to measure

because people no longer just tune into one of the broadcast networks and watch. They're in bars. They're in airports. They're in restaurants. They're at viewing parties. They're watching on two bees. they're watching on Fox broadcast, they're watching on their computer, so it's harder to measure,

but it also gives you more places to go in and make an estimate to add up to a bigger aggregate number. Now again, do I think that's specious? No, it's just not exact. And anybody who thinks that anybody knows that it was 137.7 million people watching between 8 to 815, it's a directional number. But it happened, David. The numbers started being counted out-of-home viewing. Nielsen didn't track it, didn't include it in its estimates until mid-2020. Not coincidentally, by the way, when viewership in the industry they were measuring plummeted because of the pandemic.

It felt like a stimulus package at the time for those who were closely watching. But underneath this umbrella of Fox set this record, it's not, of course, as John was alluding to, simply Fox. It's all these properties, including fast channels, which seems to be another development in what we're counting here. So remember, Fox was the one company that chose not to go streaming. They didn't invest a dollar the way many of the other big cable companies and broadcasting giants had invested. And so Fox is now announced, and you saw in the earnings call, John, that Murdoch said, listen, we're now leaning into streaming.

Now we see a path to profitability, so we're going to do it. And the Super Bowl was on Tooby this year. And in that $126, $27 million, it's around $13,000. and a half million people who purportedly were watching it just on 2B. Every year when a record set, A, it impacts the advertising rate. And this year was a record sold out, and it was 8 million per 30. I think it's... Eight million in change.

It's around that for a 30-second ad. And so as the numbers go up, you get to charge more. There's a waiting list to the companies. When State Farm backed out of its Super Bowl ad because of what was going on in California, Fox resold it in less than a second. It's like having a waiting list for season ticket holders. So everyone's incentivized, which is why these press releases don't mean much to me.

And by the way, the ad rates are going to go up, whether ratings go up or not. With a rating going up, helps it go down easily. The demand is such that if they say next year it's 8.25, and if the rating had gone down 3%, trust me as an advertiser if you went in and said oh well i'd like to pay 97% next year of what i paid this year the answer would be no you're going to pay next year eight and a quarter and after that's going to be eight and a half and in in the decade it's going to be 10 million dollars

for a 30 second spot whatever happens to the ratings one of my favorite through lines in this show is that we always are reminded how there is actually something of a disconnect between viewership between the ratings and what the prices you can charge for stuff can be. So, John, I don't want to clarify this, right? So the way it works is if you have the rights to the Super Bowl and I presume, were you in those meetings, John, when it came to like, what are we going to charge for an ad slot here? Did you have the Super Bowl in your... We had the Super Bowl one time in my tenure.

How did that go? And it was the Super Bowl that was played in San Diego between the... It was a Super Bowl that the offensive linemen crossed over into Mexico. Oh, the Raiders. That was Raiders and Buccaneers. Raiders and Buccaneers, because that was John Gruden with the Buccaneers after he had left the Raiders, correct? And the Buccaneers spanked them, right? I don't recall.

Buccaneers won 48 to 21. Oh, we close to this year. This was 2003, but Gruden was the coach. Gruden beat the Raiders, correct, yes. And, yeah, we had the Super Bowl. I cannot remember what it called. at that point for an ad, but probably less than half of what it costs now. And you don't really, it's an arbitrage, but you don't ever really have any trouble

selling the Super Bowl out. 2.1 million was the cost of 30 seconds. Yeah. But also the rights paid to the NFL for that game was a lot less than what Fox paid for this one. But it would still prove my point. the cost of an ad has gone up four times in what year was that that was 2000 that was 2003 January so in 21 years the audience is not quadrupled the cost of those ads has quadrupled but the use of the ads has also changed one of the big differences between now and 20 25 years ago these ads now have lives

outside of the super bowl used to be they debut during the Super Bowl and then they'd be shown a couple other times within other shows on different channels. Now, the release of the ads actually happens. There's YouTube videos. The companies are using it in their social media. Well, every actor you hire to be in it posts it to their channel, which is another different dynamic. Everybody's also an advertiser and a platform themselves. And so it's easier to amortize the expense over different silos that exist in these companies. It's an entire industry now, the Super Bowl advertising, which is why the prices will continue to go up as long as there is demand by companies and there is such demand, which I don't quite get.

I don't remember. What do you mean you don't get? I'm not going to eat a little Cesar's because I love Eugene Levy's eyebrows. So can we talk about that actually? And by the way, it's funny that there were two separate commercials involving like eyebrows and mustache flying off. I conflated it during a nothing personal episode where I thought it was two sets of mustaches because his eyebrow looks so much like a mustache.

Speaking to the group think, perhaps, of like what people are trying to do here and how it's disappointing to people who were raised on, I don't know, the Budweiser frogs or whatever. But John, the idea of advertising, which is, again, a through line in this topic, like, what are you really getting for your money? The Super Bowl seems like, as you've said, seems like the last place for that challenge to really be, for that doubt to creep in, right? It's the biggest thing we got. It's the Academy Awards for designers is what the equivalent.

is for the ads during the Super Bowl for advertising companies and for the creatives who come up with ideas and the budgets for these commercials are obviously way higher than for a standard 30 or 60 second even in the second biggest show the world series or the NBA finals or anything and I just have always questioned quietly but never to my sponsors I've always questioned like what are you getting exactly well if you're trying to measure exactly what the return on your invested dollar is for these ads. It's not really how people think about it, right? I bought a Super Bowl ad one time. We've talked about this on the show, I think, for the ESPN phone, and that would have been somewhere around 2005. So we paid a couple of million bucks. We had forecast to, I think, sell about

250,000 phones, and we sold, I think, about 90,000. So as a return on investment, it did not work. It was, do you remember the tagline? I don't. I remember the commercial. It was, I believe it was sports heaven was the premise of us. Oh, yeah, sports heaven. Heaven. Heaven. You were selling heaven. And you had, this is funny. I didn't, I didn't remember. So this is 06, it turns out. And there are a bunch of baseball players in it. Jim Edmonds, excuse me, Tori Hunter, Juan Pierre, Hudson Street, David Wells, Baron Davis, Stefan Marbury, NBA players, obviously. Antonio Gates was there.

Just a bunch of guys. And what did you get for it in the end? I think we got about 90,000 people who bought a phone and signed up for a phone program. And then what? Well, the effort to create Sports Heaven on a mobile device lasted about a year, I think. it became hell. Well, the right-off is what I would describe it out.

It became a hellacious financial matter. But we pivoted pretty quickly and created a very significant mobile business around ESPN Digital. But we did not manage to crack into serious market share in the digital phone slash phone plan business. It's really an amazing thing that I think about. how to get into market share and we're in a business with draft kings who's a sponsor and they and Fandu will have a lion's share of the market share and there's a ton of people trying to get it

it's the the old days with the rental cars with herds and davis and people trying to figure how to get into the top two or coke and Pepsi how do you do it what do you do and brand awareness is one way you can budget to spend money not to move phones or not to sell cases of your liquid but to make people aware of it. And I've always questioned that expenditure because you want to let people know what you have, but you want to move phones. You heard what John said. They wanted to move 250,000 phones, but there are people within Disney who said, let's just get people to know what that means. Well, it was the introduction, and it is the best place in the country to introduce a new product. Oh, yeah. Steve Jobs did this famously. Yeah, with Apple. With Apple ad that was the sort of Leany-Rifin-style, you know,

It was an iconic commercial. It was widely viewed as a failure. Was it? This is 1984. It was viewed as a failure at the time. It was viewed as a sort of gigantic expense. They kind of fell flat because it was a little too intellectual, a little too highfalutin, and people who didn't react particularly well to it.

But at least that's my recollection. I could be wrong. Wall Street analysts are willing to have one quarter, one earnings period, where you can dismiss that it was just, brand awareness, these expenses. They didn't have to actually have any sort of ROI. But once you get into like quarter two or a year or two of your plan, you better show that you're moving phones or that you're doing something to actually bring

in money or else you're going to lose. Well, interesting enough, who I'm skeptical about many things, I'm not skeptical about the value of buying an ad in the Super Bowl. It clearly gets the country's attention for a short period of time. I read about the ads and a ranking of the ads four days before the Super Bowl. They now release the ads. Everybody pays attention. You get a lot of digital.

You get a lot of views. They post a lot of stuff now. I think it, if you can afford it, it is a great way to announce a new product, a great way to remind people you're the leader, which is why people like Budweiser are there. It's not a great way to show and next week return on investment in the grocery store or the if i played a game with you right now which i don't think we're equipped to play with our lean mean staff but if we showed a video of five ads and had five companies where we blacked out what the company was and you had to match five ads to the five companies i do not believe you would

go five for five i don't believe i would go five for five and i believe most people would not no no i think you're right about that it is always surprising to me i just said that conceptually i think it's a good thing to buy. You then are wasting your money when you make a commercial, which is completely and utterly undecipherable, where you have no idea what they're advertising. I was on a long flight, I watched a couple of movies. Every time I watch a movie, you know, you get served four or five ads. I got served an ad called Will Be or Will Buy or something over and over every time. Clearly it was effective. And I have no idea what they were advertising. It was an app has something new with transportation, I believe. But I have no idea. Do you remember the movie you were

watching? Yeah, I watched a bad, a pretty mediocre movie. And you don't know the title? Yeah, I do know the title. Daddy-O, starring Sean Penn and Dakota Johnson. I liked it. They were in the cab the whole time. They were in the cab. It's all right. I was very entertained and I actually watched that on a plane also. Yeah, well, that's the only place. I think it's your own. I don't think it was in the theaters. I have not seen on the streaming service. It was. Very inexpensive to make. I am shocked. Shocked to hear you guys have different views on the same thing. By the way, what you should, what this does mean more than anything is we fly too much. Because I will kid you not, I look at all movies, I go from A to Z, and I've seen every one of

them that I want to see. I then rewatched an hour of Moneyball again, just because it's, It's a great film. Ever entertaining and great. Did not think it would work when I first heard of them adapting Moneyball. I was like, how are you going to do this? And they hit it out of the park, as far. It's a perfect movie. It's really great.

The jealousy toward Billy Bean in owners meetings after the movie Moneyball was palpable. Oh, the movie, not the book. Oh, no one cared about the book. And no one cared about the movie until... They cared about Brad Pitt. That's it. It was insane. It was, and this was not sort of jocular.

This was real. Why were they mad? It's nothing but good. It's good for baseball. It was offensive to many in the room that Billy Bean would forever be associated with Brad Pitt. Was their whole thing like Billy's not that hot? Yes. Oh, no, that was 98% of it.

With all due respect, with all due respect, how many people, I mean, Brad Pitt would get no roles if he couldn't be hotter than the people he's playing. No, but he often plays 50s. Also, grading on the curve of baseball general managers. He is Brad Pitt. No offense. But not really. So that's also way overblown. There was nothing in the movie about Miguel Tadha or Tim Hudson.

We're not going to relitigate. But I would like to say that what the owners were happy about in president's GMs was that Jonah Hill was Paul DiPedessa. That made everyone very happy. God, are we terrible? It's like a middle school. with a bunch of rich people who own teams who act like children. So speaking, though, of the measurement of ego and other people on the outside looking in jealous of the handsome and the beautiful and the prom kings, I want to talk about the state of the NBA right now, given that we led with the NFL, which is not in question.

It's supremacy over everything. Again, the only TV show that all of us watch on a relative basis is the game we just discussed. the NBA is in a different place. The NBA has a different problem, John, when it comes to what people are consuming, how they are talking about it, where they are wildly popular, and where they are clearly anxious about where they are not.

So how do you summarize, as Adam Silver gives its own state of the union this week? It's All-Star weekend this weekend. I'll be headed to San Francisco this week. What's your view of where they are? Well, my view is they are ascendant. the deals they just did are much, much more important than whatever the regular season ratings are. We're back to people thinking the ratings are some dramatic indication of the health of the league. The ratings this year for the NBA are up and down.

They're not, I think, overall, other than the Christmas games, they're down a little bit. But so what? I mean, Adam has to address it. But his league couldn't be more healthy. They just signed $76 billion dollars worth of deals, triple what they got before. If you could ask any owner, tell me if you disagree with this, David, any owner, the commissioner, anybody associated with the NBA, would you rather have the ratings go up 20% or the meteorites go up 300%? They would say, I'll take the 300% increase in media rights.

And I think the league was worth it. I think the league is fine. Adam has to answer those questions. But the league is fine. People are watching the games. People care. We're in New York City, of course. The Knicks are good.

The city is alive when the Knicks are good. And you go to the garden right now, it's electric. So I think the league is in excellent shape. They had to deal with this. I don't think the fact that the ratings are down 3% for one Sunday or up 2% for one Sunday is particularly relevant. I don't think the ratings are what is concerned most when he puts his head on the pillow. I would imagine the state of the game. If you ask Commissioner Rob Manfred, that's what he thinks about the most,

is what is the product that we are giving our consumers to consume and our clients, which are broadcasters and which are sponsors. and the NBA to me has a game quality problem. And it also is trying to figure out who is next after LeBron and the whole LeBron going to Luca on the Lakers as sort of a small sample of what the NBA may look like going forward. Is Luca the person they want? Is it an international player?

Is it Wembe? How are they going to navigate a world without LeBron the way they did without Jordan? It's interesting. But the Luca thing was, I think, instructive in terms of how the NBA has some clear strength, and also some relative weaknesses, right? So Super Bowl Week happens.

Luca, that whole thing, takes headlines, right? Everybody is talking about this. The oxygen got stolen from the NFL in the run-up to the biggest game in America. And yet, I think this is emblematic of a concern. You have lots of people talking about the drama in the NBA, the characters, the play, the theater, meaning play, the theater, not necessarily the play itself, but the theatrics around all of it,

but it hasn't been reflected that level of cultural currency, John, when it comes to actually watching the product, as David said, the actual games. And that's an internet, social media thing, buzz thing versus product thing. Well, the product for the NFL is dramatically easier to consume, right? Lots and lots less games than the NBA.

The NBA has an advantage in that more people know their players. They have an opinion about more players. Their players are more visible. They're playing in short pants and shirts with no sleeves on them. So as opposed to helmets and pads and you can't really see who they are other than the number and the name for most of the action. But I think the NBA is playing to their strengths, which is player-driven and the NBA NFL is playing to it.

strengths, which it's the greatest game on television. It just is. And by the way, the scarcity makes a huge difference. Before this was scheming with Matt Coker, as I often do. If I ask you how many games are in the NBA playoffs versus how many games are in the NFL playoffs, what would be your guess? Oh, mathematically, like a total number. No, just quantity.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, the NFL has six on Wildcard weekend. and then it goes down to four is 10, and then that's the divisional round, plus two is 12, plus Super Bowl 1. So I'm going to say 13 playoff games in the NFL. 13. And the NBA has, there's no box.

Well, you're going to count. I was just looking for an instinctual reaction. But the NBA is a, is... Go ahead and count. Are you the jelly bean jar guy that you can look at the jar and estimate? No, I asked Matt Coker. He told me. So the NBA is 88.

and the NFL's 13. What's that assuming? Seven games series? That is sort of an average. The least game, that's sort of an average. I think we just counted one last year. 88.

It could probably be 80 to 95, right? They played all the games. But a dramatic difference. Yeah, you can't watch all those games. If you're watching just your own team, you can win a Super Bowl with your team playing three times. You're the least number of games you can play, to win an NBA championship, and this would be if you Moses Malone it, faux, foe and foe,

and foe, because you need four now. It's 16 games. You have to win 16 games. You might have to play another 12. So you could end up playing 28 games, which is more games than any NFL team plays in an entire season. But, John, you were the person at ESPN who was famous for paying, for increasing the value of this specific. specific package. Yeah, no.

And did you... And wanting more rounds, and wanting the first round to go from two or three to three of five, then the four is seven. Well, the same thing is all true of the NFL. It just has less of everything. But yeah, we would want

as many rounds in the playoffs, right? Nobody watched 100... No game in the regular season had 127 million people watch it, right? So the games are more and more valuable as you advance to a championship. It probably is... is more acute with the NBA, meaning that the playoff games drive a larger percentage of the value

than the NFL postseason would. That feels right. And so, yeah, we wanted to press, and the league has responded. They understand. And what Adam did, of course, with the in-season tournament is he needs to figure out, and Christmas Day, and he's experimenting this year with the All-Star format, he needs to figure out ways to make more of the huge quantity of games they play stand out in some way. So you have to watch that game as opposed to.

I can look at the next schedule now. And there's 20 games in the next X number of weeks, I don't know, four, four and a half. And I can look at it and find five or six games I'd want to watch. But nobody, almost nobody, there are a few people, watches every game their NBA team plays. Lots of people watch every game their NFL team plays, don't they? I think we bury the lead because Adam Silver, when he was giving his state of the union, one of the most important economic things that he brought up was the possibility of going to 10-minute quarters. His desire to make the games two hours for broadcast, two hours for fans, two hours for players.

It would help with every part of making it better for the union in terms of if they could get their same salary to play eight fewer minutes. It would have issues with the record books, et cetera. But his claim is that the broadcasters were very interested in the two-hour window the way they are for soccer and that the two-and-a-half to 240 that is an NBA game now, it felt like he got pushback during negotiations. And I was surprised by that. Wait, wait. He got pushed back as in they wanted to keep the status quo. No, meaning that he, like in baseball, when the games went too long, the broadcasters were saying, listen, it's screwing up our windows.

We can't have four-hour games. and NBA games at two hours and 40 minutes, let's say, average, he was basically saying that the broadcasters had given him an indication that a two-hour window would be favorable and better for them. And I didn't necessarily understand that. Well, it's a problem. It's not a big problem for ESPN.

It's a bigger problem for NBC, because right they're trying to get their local news in and the broadcast networks still care about the block of time. the predictability of that. But it's so different now. It used to be that shows were 52 minutes and that they started eight and ended at nine on your NBC channel.

But now, when you go to episode lengths, we're used to a 42 minute or a 48 minute or an hour three. We don't really think about it much. I certainly don't. Again, if you wanted to decrease, I personally would not change the quarters. I would change the amount of timeouts

and I would change what happens at the end of the game. They got to figure out a way it's worse than college basketball. You've got to figure out a way that the last minute and 12 seconds doesn't take 16 minutes to play. It's the number one. Every non-die-hard, hardcore NBA fan I know,

the reason they don't want to watch basketball with me is because the end of the game is boring. It's so long, and they take so many timeouts, and there's so many reviews. Somehow they've got to figure out that the last... It's another great thing that's great about soccer. There's no way to make the game much longer. You've got to actually...

play. To me, I would say you only get, I'm making it up. You only get one timeout you can keep to the last two minutes. That's it. You don't get to keep four timeouts so you can score, call a timeout. I'd like to know. It's about advancing the ball. So the NBA, the reason why you keep timeouts to the end of the game is getting into half court. So if you change the rule that after a basket, that all of a sudden you can take the ball out at half court instead of at the end, that would be a little change. We'll just change the rule that says you don't. get to take it out at half court if you call a timeout. If you could do it either way.

Which would be a big disadvantage. I mean, what is the logical reason that I get to trade a timeout for half a court? The reason is that you have a higher percentage chance. No, no, I understand. But what is the logic of saying, oh, well, if you call a timeout, you advance the ball to half court? Why don't you just say you still have to advance it from the other side? Well, the theory was when there's a stoppage in the game, I get what you're saying.

But it's fascinating that I have a silver-staffir. I would love to hear you guys Statler and Waldorf timeouts for many, many more hours. I do want to get back to what Adam Silver was saying, though, because he sort of diagnosed a particular issue here, speaking to how young people, John, online, are still very into the NBA. They are following, they are debating, they are consuming in these bite-sized portions. But Adam Silver said the decline in the young 18 to 34 demographic is because they're not watching traditional cable. They're streaming stuff.

They're doing all of that. And that, this feels like an... economy of how to monetize stuff question at this point. It sounds to me like the preparation to work with your research companies to make sure you're measuring all the other stuff because they're not watching the stuff through the measuring companies. It's not unlike we were talking about before. With the press release.

He is going to work with the companies. They're going to measure more out of home. They're going to measure more digital stuff. They're going to figure out a way to measure the total engagement numbers with the NBA. They're going to be higher. and problem solved. His problem there is only PR. It's not business.

It's only PR. I had an amazing epiphany the other day, and it was a bad one, that my demographic, my age now, there's not one league, there's not one company, there's not one anybody

that is gearing anything toward me. Well, there's a reason for that. But why? Because... I'm not dying any time soon. No. And I am, from a measurement standpoint,

Let's put out that press release. David Sampson, quote, I'm not dying anytime soon. You sound now like Les MoonVez. It used to complain, gee, we have such wealth among the people who are 68 years old who are watching our mediocre shows. I don't understand why people don't value them. I won't ask you the specific brand. How long have you been using the current deodorant you use? Oh, this is a whole.

This is a whole different thing, so I don't want to answer that. But I totally understand what you're saying. saying. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. The first one I used was Menon because my dad used Mennon and said to me that if you don't use Mennon, that you will always smell. This is a real... And I don't know that he was paid a paid person for it. I don't think he was. And it was a very big moment when I chose to stop using Mennon, which may not exist anymore. No, no, it exists. It still exists. That's what I use. No way. This is making so much more sense now.

Because... This show makes so much more sense now. As you get... Holy. You've made all... You've made... You've made all your ad choices already, David. What's the last time? But I'm talking about rule changes. I'm talking about advertisers. I'm talking about the whole package. No one cares about me anymore.

You were asking why no one is targeting you or me. I want to be targeted. I'm willing to change. I mean, not really, but maybe. No, no. You, I'm more willing to change to you, David. The chance is that you decided a long time ago, what kind of ties you buy, what kind of car you buy,

what kind of toothpaste you use, and you use the same one. every time you have for the last 20 years. Is that not mostly directionally correct? It is directionally correct. Toothpace was a bad example because sometimes you have to change for a while. Directionally correct in the same way that John was like,

I think sports are going to be big on phones. Yeah, exactly. Directionally, it was right. But no, it is that you've made your choice. And why did, I don't know why we're going to use deodorants, but we will. Why did Old Spice have the huge campaign? And the nutty campaign that probably you and I went, that's stupid.

They had it to try to convince young guys to use Old Spice instead of Axe. That's right. And Axe, did you ever use Axe? Never. No, exactly. And that's why they don't target. This is an Axe free podcast. That's why they're not targeting you because you're not going to switch.

They got to get the young. They got to get the young folks, David. We've already made our choice. I don't know where we are with time, but I've one more Adam Silver issue that he's got to deal with. It's an existential question. Where are we with time? He's heading into the All-Star weekend. And I think you may be going to that or you may not be.

Yes, I may already be there. You may already be there, which is even cooler. And the All-Star game is something that he's trying to figure out they're doing a new change this year. And I can't wait for us to review it on a future show. There's four teams now, and there's going to be some sort of tournament style. Plus, there's a slam-dunk contest with four guys that no one can name, including the two-time reigning champion. And Adam Silver, like the other commissioners, they sit around. and I was thinking of this when Rob Bannford was in the box at the Super Bowl

next to McCartney or five away. They're trying to figure out any way to add any sort of valuable inventory. So John is saying more playoff games, but that doesn't always work. So the NFL says, how about more international games? And they go package that, which is why they've done more. Different slots. They do the 9.30 a.m. The NFL, the NBA goes to Paris, and they happen to bring their top French star.

It was announced this week that MLB is going to open and Tokyo with the Dodgers and guess who's starting for the Dodgers? Yamamoto and Sasaki. And so what all the leagues are doing is trying to find a different audience. They're trying to get money in order to access that audience and then take money from that audience. And eventually you run out, but not yet. And so Adam Silver, as he thinks about the state of his game, my view that chucking threes is ugly, it really is last on his list. And the ratings being down, it's second to last on his list. He's trying to. He's trying to. trying to find different revenue streams,

which is what all the commissioners are doing. He's trying to find some non-David Samson's to consume his products. Well, he has, I mean, look, they've clearly signaled that they're interested potentially in starting a league in Europe. So we should talk about that idea, which smells a bit to me, incidentally, right? This is Maverick Carter, right? Yeah, this is not the end.

It's a couple of different things. Maverick Carter is talking, I don't. As Maverick Carter, I think, was working with the Saudis to figure out. Yes, to raise $5 billion to create a competitive non-NBA global basketball league. Yes, it was... A live golf of basketball. I guess. It's not really the same as live. I think the idea was to create some teams that would travel and play and play each other in exhibition games.

Yes, six men, six women. I'm very skeptical of the idea overall. I am much less skeptical. of the idea of the NBA launching a league in Europe. I do believe there's a difference between what the NFL is doing with their overseas international games, what the NBA is doing. The NBA actually is planning to go to Europe. And when they go to Europe, it will be NBA Europe.

And Europe will care because Europe cares about basketball. There is no shot. The NFL already tried to start a league in Europe. and I think they got a little traction, not much. I think they get a lot of traction for the traveling, and I don't mean this in any pejorative sense, but the traveling circus, they're going to take that down to Australia next year.

It'll be a smash. Are they going to launch an Australian league? I don't think so. Ireland? They're going to Ireland. They'll do great, but it is not in advance of a new NFL Europe League. They might think about a team,

but NBA can go to Europe and have a real league it puts basketball on the way to being the world's second big global sport. I heard some people next to me in the lounge waiting area asking what was the largest sport in the world and what was second. Their answer was cricket. It's not my answer because it's kind of a cheap thing where they play in India. There's a lot of people in India. But it's not the world's second sport. They play it in about a dozen countries in a serious way.

but basketball will be played at some not distant point in 60, 70 countries in a various, serious way. You say it's not Liv, and I say what makes Live live live is when they got some of the top players to go play at Live. You're not going to get players. So we say that, be it the money in the NBA is so good, I would just say that if there were a middling NBA player to even an All-Star level player and you offered $100 million per year to play in this Maverick Carter League, that that player would go.

They'll get one and nobody. Which is all Liv did. But Liv got some number of the top 25 players, not marginal player. I do not believe you might get one. I do not believe any of the top 50 NBA players will be attracted to the idea of going to play in a travel circuit against other marginal players. Rinaldo went to Saudi Arabia, didn't he? And didn't make any difference. On that note.

There's some pun here about dogs and tricks and sports washing. You can have it later. Yeah, we'll figure that out. David and John, thank you for being the best in class. Good out.

That's good out. Pablo Torre finds out is produced by Walter Averoma, Ryan Cortez, Sam Daywig, Juan Galindo, Patrick Kim, Neely Lohman, Rob McCray, Rachel Miller-Howard, Carl Scott, Matt Sullivan, Claire Taylor, Chris Tumenello, and Juliet Warren.

Our studio engineering by RG Systems, our sound design by NGW post. Our theme song, as always, is by John Bravo. We will talk to you next time.