Throughout this NBA season, the discourse surrounding the league has been so … tiring. There’s a myriad of ways to describe the way fans, players and analysts discuss the league in today’s social media era, but “tiring” feels the most appropriate.
Throughout the season, on talk shows like “First Take,” “First Things First,” “Get Up” and more, the conversations about the NBA have been more about how to “fix” the league than the league itself. These media pundits seem more interested in dunking on the league’s declining ratings rather than discussing the actual basketball being played.
What’s problematic about this is that these are not good-faith, solution-based discussions. No solutions are presented during these segments, and they have much more to do with lamenting the league’s current status.
Whether it’s the league’s overreliance on the three-point shot, the lack of a clear future “face of the league” once Lebron James and Stephen Curry retire, or the lackluster product that All-Star Weekend has become, most of these conversations amount to the same sentiment — the league is on the decline, and we all miss what it used to be.
This incessant criticism of the league’s position isn’t the only thing that’s tiring about NBA discourse this season. Another long-standing issue is its over-reliance on a select number of big-market teams, like the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers, and big-name players, like Lebron and Curry.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with focusing more on these large-scale storylines, as they do drive more interest in the product than smaller markets and more under-the-radar players. However, this trend in NBA discourse has been especially apparent this season, as the Cleveland Cavaliers and Oklahoma City Thunder lead their respective conferences with historic seasons.
These small market teams and their respective stars should be the center of discussion, especially with Thunder star Shai Gilgeous-Alexander having a historic, MVP-caliber season. Instead, “First Take” continues to debate Lebron vs. Michael Jordan as the GOAT, while TV personality Kendrick Perkins claims the Lakers are “saving” the NBA.
The mere notion that the NBA needs “saving” encapsulates what’s been so tiring about NBA discourse this season. There’s no appreciation of the game; instead, there’s constant nagging criticism over the league and its players.
Since I’ve been lamenting about the state of NBA discourse up to this point without offering any solutions, it’s now on me to be better than these NBA talking heads and offer solutions to make NBA discourse more positive and productive.
It is surely possible, as other leagues like the NFL and even NCAA basketball have much more positive media coverage than the NBA. Analysts of these sports are actually interested in breaking down the X’s and O’s of the game, talking about all of the relevant teams and offering well-rounded analysis of the game.
So, how do we take NBA discourse from its current point to the state of discourse in these other sports?
First and foremost, we should promote voices who cherish the game, not those who diminish and nitpick it. Many retired NBA players belittle the current state of the game to prop up the version of the NBA they played in. The most prominent former player talking heads that contribute to this are names like Perkins, Shaquille O’Neal and Paul Pierce.
These great former players offer interesting perspectives, but they make NBA discourse so negative. The league is suffering in ratings, which is partly due to this negative coverage. When retired legends talk down on the modern game, fans will be inclined to listen to their childhood heroes and tune out of the current league.
Of course, these retired legends will have a voice. But fans and media should either push back on or ignore these negative perspectives, and they should instead prop up those who promote the modern game. Certain retired players do, like Jamaal Crawford and Tim Legler. These are the voices that are interested in speaking about the modern game, not just reminiscing on when they believe the league was better.
This also does not mean that voices in the NBA media must always have unwavering positivity. Of course, criticism should be a part of the discourse as with any sport. However, for healthy discussion about the NBA, criticism should be focused on specific players and teams on the court — not on the state of the league and how certain players could never have played back in the day.
This effort would be aided if more authentic and genuine voices were promoted, but it also starts with us — the fans.
Many fans, especially those of older generations, often fall back into lazy talking points on why the NBA isn’t the same anymore instead of trying to enjoy the new and different NBA.
If fans continue to talk negatively like the talking heads on TV, NBA discourse will continue to be an endless loop of negativity. It’s okay to criticize the league, but it becomes so tiring when this is seemingly inserted into every NBA-centered conversation in 2025.
As fans, we should check others when they make these negative claims about the league. Do these fans really hate the modern NBA style? Or are they just nostalgic for a time when they were watching as a carefree kid? If fans push back against negative discourse with these kinds of questions, some fans could be inspired to look at the NBA for what it is — flawed, yes, but still just as fun in its own right as it’s ever been.
We also have the responsibility as fans to avoid the NBA media pitfall of focusing on only the biggest stars and markets. Instead of eating up the third Lebron vs. Jordan debate on “First Take” in a week, we should respond positively to an analysis of how the Detroit Pistons have turned things around this season.
If we just start there, maybe fans can push NBA discourse back into a space where modern basketball is appreciated, and every market and player has an opportunity to shine.
Comment Policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to refuse the publication of entirely anonymous comments.