ESPN's NBA Coverage Is Failing The League and Its Players
The network's quest to grow the game has diluted it through sensationalized hot takes.
Mainstream media coverage of the NBA is puzzling. No matter the network, there’s a lack of actual analysis of objective, on-court matters. In the social media era that prioritizes engagement, sports shows seem to only talk about whatever gets the most clicks through quick soundbites. Over the last decade, basketball coverage has become too casual.
At ESPN, Stephen A Smith has become the unofficial face of the network. A polarizing figure in the space, Smith has proven to be one of the most powerful voices in sports. With Smith headlining nearly all basketball coverage on ESPN, the network leans heavily into tabloid style, sensationalist coverage of an incredibly nuanced sport. Rather than talking about X’s and O’s, Smith and company discuss hypotheticals surrounding big market teams and popular players. Prompts like “Who is under more pressure?” are the focal point of First Take, a widely successful show that made its debut in 2007 with Smith and Skip Bayless as hosts. Years later, this culture of sensationalism is pervasive throughout the broader coverage of basketball.
The comparison of Michael Jordan and Lebron James is the pinnacle of 2010s and 2020s basketball discussion, and a microcosm basketball analysis today. This sort of trivial conversation is ubiquitous because no one can be wrong; it's a completely subjective, hypothetical question where no answer will ever exist. You can’t look like a fool if you answer a question that has no answer. Despite this debate’s repetitive nature, it’s been the backbone of league promotion for nearly 20 years.
When an 18 year old Lebron James was drafted number one overall in 2003, expectations were unprecedented. Lebron’s entrance into the league couldn’t have come at a more consequential time; just six months before Lebron played his first NBA game, Michael Jordan finished his illustrious career. The comparisons to Jordan came almost instantly, and were capitalized on by sports media personalities. Every milestone reached by James was celebrated through the lens of Jordan. Career timelines were closely monitored and ardently debated. Lebron played his first 8 seasons without a championship to his name, and became the joke of NBA memes in the infancy of social media. Once Lebron won his first title it only heightened Jordan comparisons. The coverage has been black or white ever since; he’s either better than Jordan or he’s not.
With Lebron’s impending retirement on the horizon, the league must pivot in promoting new talent. Whether it's Shai Gilgeous-Alexander or Anthony Edwards, the league and its media partners have had trouble building hype around their young stars. There’s no easy promotional point like there was with Lebron in the Michael Jordan comparisons. Many point out the difficulty of creating a star in a small market like Oklahoma City or Minneapolis, but the idea that a small market is impotent for growing superstars is categorically false. In other sports, location doesn’t seem to matter to the viability of a superstar. Patrick Mahomes plays in Kansas City, as does young shortstop Bobby Witt Jr., yet fans still recognize them as a current and future “face” of their respective leagues. Quarterback Josh Allen calls Buffalo home, and instead of pointing out the small market that is Buffalo, journalists highlight the Bills’ fervent fanbase that comes out to support their team no matter the weather.
NBA coverage coming from networks like ESPN ignores teams that aren't in a New York or Los Angeles sized market. The Cleveland Cavaliers and Oklahoma City Thunder are the two best teams in the NBA this season, yet you wouldn’t know based on coverage. Every time a small market team has a star, voices like Stephen A Smith talk about their need to be in a bigger market. Why should fans in small markets want to support their local teams when media members blatantly ignore them?
This issue doesn't solely fall on members of the media; the NBA has failed in league promotion over the last few years. This season the Lakers, Warriors, Celtics, and Knicks all have more than 30 nationally televised games respectively. The Orlando Magic, who finished in 5th place in the Eastern Conference last season behind 22 year old rising superstar Paolo Banchero, have 9 nationally televised games. How can fans get to know young players if they’re not promoted? The NBA isn’t telling the unique stories of young superstars in small markets. These decisions are setting up the NBA for a difficult transition in the next five years as league cornerstones like Lebron James, Steph Curry, and Kevin Durant retire.
Even though ESPN’s basketball coverage is an enigma, the network has proven that it can be the host of quality sports analysis. Programs like NFL Live are informative and entertaining, giving audiences the knowledge they need to watch games. Ryan Clark, Mina Kimes, Dan Orlovsky, and Marcus Spears provide detailed player analysis, leaving audiences feeling like they know a little bit more about football at the end of an episode. Every show has hot takes designed for entertainment, but the hot takes still remain in the realm of the sport rather than existing in hypothetical scenarios. There’s something for everyone on NFL Live, but the program still remains focused on the game.
Outside of ESPN, basketball coverage remains relatively the same on other networks. Shaquille O’Neal’s work on TNT’s Inside The NBA has been abysmal as of late. While discussing the Detroit Pistons, O’Neal attributed the team’s recent success to head coach Chauncy Billups. This would be solid commentary if Chauncy Billups wasn’t the head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers. When his colleagues pointed out the error, he dismissed the Pistons by saying “First of all, I don’t watch the Pistons.” Not only is Shaq admitting he doesn’t do the due diligence of watching the sport he covers, he’s admitting that the things he says on TV aren’t his own thoughts. Shaq’s lack of effort devalues the word of NBA analysts; why should we tune in to watch people who don’t watch or care about the game?
Shaq is famous for criticizing current and former NBA big men among the likes of Rudy Gobert, Dwight Howard, and Javale Mcgee. Even though it's an analysts job to break down the game, Shaq is consistently bringing down current players in a way that isn’t constructive. How can fans respect present day players when former players and current analysts are constantly tearing down the level of play? It’s easy to wonder if there’s anything about the NBA, or basketball in general, that Shaq still enjoys.
Networks are continuing to reward the personalities previously mentioned. Earlier this year, Stephen A Smith signed a 5 year $100 million contract with ESPN. Shaquille O’Neal signed a new deal with TNT that will make him more than $15 million per year. In 2021 Skip Bayless signed a four year, $32 million contract with Fox Sports. When I look at these numbers I’m incredulous with how three people that do such damage to sports journalism are rewarded like this. What do networks think viewers want? Are they aiming for the “hate-watch” viewer? Do they want people that will say controversial sports opinions to garner viewership?
Many point out that programs on ESPN, TNT, and FS1 are for entertainment, but it seems that people forget that sports alone are entertaining. People like the competition, the strategy of coaches, the personalities of players, and the journey of a team. If a viewer watches for the sensationalism provided by Smith, Bayless, and O’Neal, maybe they don’t like basketball as much as they think they do.
It’s clear major networks are trying to expose basketball programming to as many eyes as possible. In this quest for viewership, the product is being diluted to make it more digestible for the casual fan, removing everything that makes basketball great. The way to introduce the casual fan to sports is simple; show them sports. Sensationalized hot topics are great to quickly grab a viewers attention, but after tip off viewers are left to decide if they actually enjoy the game.
Journalists employed by major networks need to decide if they want to teach a viewer about the game through quality storytelling and reporting, or manufacture drama for fleeting engagement.