Will Steph Curry move to TV? Will ESPN's booth sputter? Will fans watch? NBA Finals Media Preview
Richard Deitsch and Andrew Marchand are sports media writers for The Athletic. They converse every couple of weeks on sports media topics. Today, they discuss the NBA Finals from a media perspective, with thoughts on the future of ESPN's NBA Finals booth; the expectation of the NBA Finals drawing low viewership (Indianapolis is the 25th-largest media market in the country and Oklahoma City is No. 47). Plus, they discuss 'Inside The NBA' moving to ABC/ESPN next season and whether viewers should expect changes from ESPN management to the show.
Advertisement
Richard Deitsch: Let's start with what you reported on Wednesday: ESPN is planning to reevaluate its entire NBA on-air game roster outside of Mike Breen, including Doris Burke's spot as a Finals announcer not guaranteed for next season, and Richard Jefferson's contract expiring and his broadcasting destination next year still up for grabs.
What's been clear is that this booth lacks great on-air chemistry. Each broadcaster individually has shined elsewhere. They know the sport cold. But it's not a symphony. It's a three-piece band, each doing its own thing. It is also an issue of ESPN's own making. What I wrote in July 2023 remains true today: ESPN laying off Jeff Van Gundy was a brutally bad decision.
Andrew Marchand: I think what gets lost is it takes time. Joe Buck left Fox for ESPN because the contract was for so much and he would work less, but another part of his calculus was staying with Troy Aikman. It is hard to build chemistry quickly with a new partner, and Buck did not want to start over. Breen is an all-time great, but the play-by-play broadcaster is most responsible for making a new team work. It's not easy, and it has shown these past two years. The NBA Finals is a hard place for on-the-job training.
Deitsch: Management has a decision: Do we once again change our booth, or ride this one in the hopes of the booth naturally growing? The turnover over the past three years has been disjointed for ESPN viewers. Some of this is on ESPN management. Some was out of its control. Could they have anticipated Doc Rivers bailing out of that deal so early? I think the gamble on J.J. Reddick was logical. If Danny Hurley had taken the Lakers job, maybe this is Year 2 of that booth, and who knows?
But can you turn this booth over yet again? We probably won't get into this, but I also guarantee that, internally, ESPN is worried that NBC and Amazon Prime Video are going to come out of the box strong, and people are going to make comparisons.
Advertisement
Marchand: I think you just hit on the most interesting subplot: Neither Prime nor NBC have hired a No. 1. Amazon has Stan Van Gundy as its top analyst so far, while NBC has Jamal Crawford or Reggie Miller.
(Now, I'm putting up my Brian Windhorst two fingers).
Why have they done that?
There is an upcoming class of analysts these platforms are eying for their new 11-year deals: LeBron James, Steph Curry, Draymond Green and Steve Kerr will all potentially go into broadcasting in some fashion. James and Curry as game analysts would cost hundreds of millions, while Green seems more of a studio guy. If Kerr stepped away from coaching, all three NBA national partners would likely want him on games.
Deitsch: Onto another topic. It has no impact on whether NBA fans will enjoy the finals or whether the finals will produce great basketball, but in our world, viewership metrics are always a significant story. Heading into the finals, the NBA has a good viewership story to tell.
Sports Business Journal's Austin Karp reported that the 2025 NBA postseason is up 3 percent across NBA TV, ESPN, ABC, ESPN2, TNT and truTV. One individual highlight: The Eastern Conference finals averaged seven million viewers across the six games. That's up three percent from the corresponding Western Conference finals on TNT the year before.
With Indianapolis and Oklahoma City being small media markets and lacking a fundamental star such as Steph Curry or LeBron James, there is an expectation: That this series is going to struggle to draw viewership unless it goes very deep. My bold prediction: If the series goes to Game 7, which most people do not expect, it will draw 22.5 million viewers, more than this year's college football title game.
It's a prediction based on momentum, as well as Nielsen capturing better out-of-home measurement for sporting events (which means higher reported data for televised sporting events). Alas, I don't expect it to get to Game 7. How do you look at this?
Advertisement
Marchand: I think the world has largely changed with us all being more connected. The idea of the big market vs. small market is not the issue with these teams. They just are nameless to the casual fan. If OKC becomes a dynasty, I think that changes, and they may become more interesting. To me, it is less that the markets are small, but rather the stars are not as well-known.
Deitsch: Let's hit on one more topic of great interest to sports viewers: 'Inside The NBA' moving to ESPN next season. I have witnessed your media tour on this topic, and we agree that ESPN isn't going to tinker with the show. They literally gave up game inventory for it. (Sure, the game inventory wasn't SEC football, but they outlayed money.)
We already have proof of concept here. Jimmy Pitaro and Co. have let 'The Pat McAfee Show' run essentially untouched. Same with anything out of Omaha Productions. I don't worry about ESPN trying to censor Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, Ernie Johnson and Kenny Smith on any third-rail topic.
But I am concerned about Inside the NBA getting the same kind of length in the postgame that it got on TNT. The ESPN programming grid is far more rigid. That's where I think the essence of the show could be hurt.
Marchand: We'll see, but ESPN executives have eyes and ears. Pitaro made this deal to have 'Inside The NBA,' the most iconic studio show of all-time. Why would he or ESPN water down or ruin it? I can't promise that your fears won't be realized, but there is no way of knowing, except what they have said.
I think the examples of what you said are accurate, and Pitaro has shown he's willing to outsource programming if he thinks it is additive. I think this column still holds true.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Braves Gave Up A 10-4 Lead In The Ninth, Is This Rock Bottom?
When the ninth inning of Thursday's game in Atlanta began, the Braves, holding a 10-4 lead over the Arizona Diamondbacks, had a 99.77% chance to win. If you had logged on to FanDuel before the first pitch of the ninth, you would have had to have wagered nearly $44,000 to win $1 betting on the Braves. Scott Blewett then struck out Eugenio Suárez leading off the frame. At that moment, the Braves' chances of winning the game went up to 99.96%. So, you are saying there is a chance. The above wager then increased to nearly $227,000. The next batter, Lourdes Gurriel Jr., homered on a 1-0 pitch, making the score 10-5. No matter, the chances still sat at 99.94%. Tim Tawa then walked and advanced to second on defensive indifference. Alex Thomas then laced a homer to right, making the score 10-7. Now things were getting interesting. And yet, even with the fans at Truist Park beginning to hold their collective breath, Atlanta still had better than a 99% chance to win. The next batter, Jose Herrera, walked, and that was that for Blewett (who hadn't quite yet). Corbin Carroll greeted the new pitcher, Raisel Iglesias, with a double, bringing the tying run to the plate. Reminder, there is still only one out. Shockingly, even with all of this activity, the Braves still win this game nearly 93 times out of 100. Ketel Marte followed Carroll's double with an infield single, scoring one run, and putting the tying runs on base. For consistency, at this moment, the win percentage was down to 85.2%. Geraldo Perdomo, having a great season, slashing .275/.373/.422, with 2.1 bWAR about a third of the way through the year, and 1-for-4 on the day with a double and an RBI, popped out to short for the second out. This unproductive at-bat felt like an omen…so close, but just not going to happen. When that second out was recorded, Atlanta moved back above 93% in their chances of winning this game. Just a week after sprinting out of the dugout and colliding with his teammate rounding third to potentially score the winning run in a Triple-A game in Reno, Nevada, Ildemaro Vargas found himself in the batter's box representing the lead run in a wild game. On an 0-1 pitch, Vargas softly lined his first hit of the season into center field, scoring Carroll to make it a one-run game. And yet, Atlanta still had better an almost 87% chance to win. Eugenio Suárez, who you will recall led off this frame with a strike out, stepped to the plate. The tying run was in scoring position, and the lead run, Vargas – no one's great base runner – on first. When the count ran to 2-and-2, the Braves had better than a 9-in-10 chance to win. That dropped to 86.4% when the count went full, as the runners (especially the not-fleet-of-foot Vargas at first) would be running on the pitch. Suárez swung at what appeared to be ball four, an 89 MPH changeup on the inner half, but too close to take. He lined it down the left field line, allowing both runners to score, giving the Diamondbacks an 11-10 lead. Eugenio Suarez may have swung at ball four. -DFF After a walk to Gurriel Jr., Tawa lined out to end the carnage. The Braves got the tying run aboard in the bottom of the ninth (a Matt Olson walk), but the game ended when Marcell Ozuna grounded into a 6-4-3 double play. The Braves had been on a 766-game winning streak in games that they led by at least six runs going into the ninth inning. The Diamondbacks, in their franchise's history, had never won a game in which they trailed by six runs or more going into the ninth inning (0-419). That all changed Thursday after at Truist Park. Atlanta started the season losing their first six games. They have battled to get back into contention, getting over .500 (24-23) about two weeks ago. Since then, they are 3-11, including Thursday's ignominious defeat. There is still a lot of baseball to be played, and the Braves cannot play a lot worse than they have at various times this season. The Phillies have faltered. The Mets are not a juggernaut. Atlanta can still make the playoffs. In the aftermath of their loss to Arizona, former Brave (and potential future Hall of Famer) Craig Kimbrell was called up from Triple-A to (hopefully) improve the bullpen, which currently has a 3.90 ERA and has converted only 10 of 21 save opportunities. After Thursday's game, Hall of Famer and Brave broadcaster said, 'If you were looking for rock bottom, this might be it.' Well, if so, there is nowhere else to go but up.
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
No Pipeline, No Progress: Meeting The Demand For Advanced Degrees
As demand for master's and doctoral degrees surges, too few programs exist to support the students most often excluded—despite their potential. The United States stands at a crossroads. While innovation, competitiveness, and global leadership increasingly depend on highly educated workers, access to graduate education remains deeply unequal and underfunded. Over 60% of business and government leaders hold graduate degrees—with more than half in business and nearly a third in law. A 2020 report by Brint and colleagues found that 61% of top media figures and 78% of think tank and foundation leaders also held advanced degrees. In many leadership roles, graduate education is no longer a competitive advantage—it's a requirement. Demand is rising. A 2024 report from Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce projects that nearly 1 in 5 jobs will soon require an advanced degree. Among 'good jobs'—those offering middle-class wages of $43,000 or more—1 in 4 will demand graduate credentials. Yet access to graduate education remains deeply inequitable. Madeline Brighouse Glueck finds that parental education still shapes graduate enrollment, especially in high-investment, high-return programs like law, medicine, and PhDs. In medicine alone, over 75% of students come from the top two income quintiles. Even academically qualified first-generation and low-income students are often left behind. While families with financial and social capital can navigate elite admissions and cover soaring costs, others are shut out. The only federally funded graduate pipeline program is the McNair Scholars Program, which supports first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented undergraduates seeking PhDs. This program—and others like Upward Bound—are now at risk of being defunded. As the federal government grows increasingly hostile toward identity-based programs in higher education, the burden of promoting equitable access is falling to the private sector and nonprofit organizations. Yet only a handful of national nonprofits directly focus on this issue: These organizations are doing powerful work—but their combined reach can only serve a fraction of the students who deserve access. To meet the moment, coordinated investments are needed—not just in graduate preparation, but also in affordability, mentorship, and long-term support: Graduate education is not a luxury—it is a national imperative. If we want to lead in science, health, law, and business—and if we believe in opportunity—we must invest in the people who will lead those fields. Let's ensure that talent, not zip code or family background, determines who has a seat at the table. Change can't wait. The time to invest is now. —--------- Help us widen the pipeline. Support Leadership Brainery in creating equitable pathways to graduate education. Donate today!
Motor Trend
12 minutes ago
- Motor Trend
The Cheapest Pickup Trucks You Can Buy in 2025 Aren't All Small
Almost across the board, pickup truck prices are creeping upward. Most of this is due to inflation (and more recently, tariffs), but formerly cheap trucks like the new generation Toyota Tacoma are going somewhat upmarket, while the price creep affecting the cheapest pickups like the Ford Maverick appears to be due to automakers capitalizing on unexpected success and, again, more recently, responding to tariffs. (The Maverick, like some other trucks on this list, is assembled outside of the U.S., which raises price pressure compared to home built options.) For now, the cheapest work trucks you can buy can still be had for under $40,000, but you don't need us to tell you that the versions of the most common full-size trucks most consumers buy are in the $50,000 to $60,000 range. Of course, the base price isn't the only metric by which to measure a truck, but it's an important one. If you want to explore other ways pickup trucks stack up against each other, MotorTrend 's proprietary algorithm provides the ultimate source of automotive data by combining over 75 years of our own instrumented performance, comfort, and efficiency testing on more than 5,000 vehicles. That data is fused with decades of expertise from former heads of design, engineering, and our own car buying experience experts. Built by statisticians and honed by automotive experts, MotorTrend 's Ultimate Car Rankings will assist in finding your perfect vehicle. But, you came here for cheap trucks, and here they are, the cheapest trucks you can buy in 2025:
