The “chorus of plaudits from notable players and keen media observers” largely came to embrace the NBA’s first In-Season Tournament, even so, the tournament “was far from a perfect debut and future iterations will require some deep thinking and soul searching,” according to Ben Golliver of the WASHINGTON POST. The novelty surrounding the first tournament “helped ensure that this year’s early-season games have been more competitive than last November’s,” and the NBA “has been quick to trumpet its increased television ratings, social media views and attendance figures.” Final four weekend “doubled as an extended victory lap,” and the Las Vegas games “left a lot to be desired.” Shifting to a neutral site in a “player-friendly market” that has hosted Summer League games for years was a “logical move, but timing and logistics created a flat atmosphere for Thursday’s semifinals and a one-sided Lakers pep rally for the final.” T-Mobile Arena “was not as loud or as engaged as it was during the NCAA West Region games in March.” There were “thousands of empty seats” during Thursday’s first semifinal, though special court lighting “helped conceal that fact on the television broadcast.” While the seats “were full for Saturday’s final because the Lakers advanced,” the building “sounded like a first-round playoff game at best.” Golliver wrote the NBA “also must rethink Las Vegas as the host.” There are “dozens of better ‘basketball cities’ across the country that would turn out for a tentpole NBA event” and many venues “that are superior to the passable T-Mobile Arena” (WASHINGTON POST, 12/11).
RELATED: Sources: NBA close to landing presenting sponsor for In-Season Tournament
LET’S SEE WHERE THIS GOES: THE ATHLETIC’s Mike Vorkunov wrote it “does seem like a good first year.” Even NBA officials “realize it will take some time to legitimize the new tournament and for it to gain meaning.” More than anything, if the “IST holds and stays on for a while, the 2023 edition seemed like a first draft.” It will also “take a while to truly determine if the In-Season Tournament was a triumph.” Any rush to judgment “is token hot-takery.” In the “mildest opinion on the internet today,” let us “just give it a few years and see where this goes.” Maybe it “becomes a true staple of the NBA season and fans begin to care and get invested in the result.” Or maybe “a few years of this proves that it just doesn’t give the league the juice it was hoping to realize” (THE ATHLETIC, 12/11).
A LITTLE EXTRA SOMETHING: ESPN.com’s Tim Bontemps reported people around the league “believe there should be some sort of incentive given to teams for winning this tournament beginning as soon as next season,” connecting the tournament to fans “beyond their teams winning games and players and coaches getting money.” While a “top-6 berth was universally seen as a bridge too far among league insiders,” one idea “that had more support was guaranteeing the winner of the tournament at least the seventh spot, meaning they would get two home games to earn their way into the playoffs.” One pushback to that idea, though, "is that it goes a bit against the idea of the play-in tournament, and what the league has done by giving teams incentive to push through the end of the regular season." NBA EVP/Basketball Strategy & Analytics Evan Wasch said that franchises “have pushed for a team-based incentive, and it could be part of next year's event” (ESPN.com, 12/11).
