OutKick⁠96%

NCAA Tournament TV Ratings Continue To Show Americans Love Basketball, But Not NBA ⁠73%

By Dan Zaksheske⁠0%

3/23/2026, 9:40:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 42.4% saturation with 225 hits. Analysis detected 1,222 faulty-reasoning hits from 531 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (5,483 of 20,100 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.70% of the article peer group.

The TV ratings for the first day of the 2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament are out, and they are massive. 
The numbers provide further proof that Americans love watching basketball. 
They just don't care about the NBA. 
According to Sports Media Watch, Thursday’s coverage averaged a combined 9.8 million viewers across CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV (with the primetime window averaging a whopping 12.5M). 
Those numbers are up 6% from last year, which drew the largest first-day average audience in the history of the tournament (9.1 million). 
Nielsen changed its methodology to include its Big Data + Panel approach and expanded out-of-home measurement in September 2025, and it has mostly boosted live sports. 
So, the 6% increase doesn't necessarily signal a major increase in viewership, but it does show that viewership isn't declining. 
The same can't really be said for the NBA, where the on-court product has been in decline for years. 
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver is trying to combat tanking while star players take nights off in the name of "load management" and the games mostly consist of guys jacking up three pointers, shooting free throws and refusing to play defense. 
Plus, if you've ever attended an NBA game, you know it's more like you went to a concert and some dudes decided to play basketball. 
Oh, and then there's the incessant lectures about "social justice" from some of the richest and most privileged members of American society that generally turn away average Americans. 
None of those problems exist in college basketball. 
There's no "load management," no tanking, no lectures about social justice, players actually play defense, fans care, and the atmosphere is electric virtually every night. 
March Madness Drives More TV Viewers Than NBA Playoffs 
To illustrate the point, let's compare the first day of the NCAA Tournament with the first round of the NBA playoffs. 
Now, keep in mind, Nielsen's methodology changed after last year's NBA playoffs, so it's not exactly apples-to-apples. 
But it will still provide important data points. 
The league said the eight games on the opening weekend of the 2025 NBA playoffs averaged 4.4 million viewers. 
Not bad, but less than half the audience of the NCAA Tournament. 
And, keep in mind, Silver bragged that these were the best numbers in 25 years. 
So, the comparison here is the best opening weekend in modern NBA playoff history vs. what amounted to a relatively normal opening day for the NCAA Tournament (yes, it was a tournament record, but the tournament has been trending up at a steady pace from an average of 8.4M in 2023 to 8.6M in 2024 to 9.1M in 2025 to 9.8M in 2026, so this year was not a wild outlier). 
And it gets a lot worse for the NBA. 
Last year's NBA Finals averaged 10.2 million viewers, which is only slightly better than opening day of the NCAA Tournament. 
But keep in mind those numbers are boosted by the series going seven games. 
Games 1–6 averaged just 9.2 million viewers. 
What does this all tell us? 
Americans still love watching basketball. 
They just don't love watching the NBA. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 33.1%Dan Zaksheske: 6.1%Outkick: 8.8%Confirmation Bias33.1%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Outkick: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Outkick: 5.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Outkick: 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 1.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Outkick: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.3%Dan Zaksheske: 8.6%Outkick: 12.5%Framing Effect31.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.0%Outkick: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.6%Outkick: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Outkick: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Dan Zaksheske: 7.8%Outkick: 12.8%Negativity Bias15.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.9%Outkick: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.5%Outkick: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Outkick: 5.1%In-Group Bias6.2%This article: 5.3%Dan Zaksheske: 3.6%Outkick: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.3%This article: 6.2%Dan Zaksheske: 3.4%Outkick: 5.2%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 7.5%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 1.3%Horn Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 3.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.4%Outkick: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Dan Zaksheske: 5.7%Outkick: 4.0%Ad Hominem5.3%This article: 12.8%Dan Zaksheske: 2.7%Outkick: 2.0%Straw Man12.8%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 3.0%Outkick: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.3%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Outkick: 2.3%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.7%Outkick: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.3%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.3%Circular Reasoning2.3%This article: 31.6%Dan Zaksheske: 7.7%Outkick: 11.5%Hasty Generalization31.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.8%Outkick: 1.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.5%Dan Zaksheske: 4.3%Outkick: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion5.5%This article: 3.6%Dan Zaksheske: 1.8%Outkick: 1.7%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.0%Outkick: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.5%Outkick: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Outkick: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.3%Outkick: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.7%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Outkick: 4.3%Anecdotal4.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.4%Outkick: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.0%Outkick: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.2%Outkick: 1.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.9%Outkick: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 2.3%Outkick: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.5%Outkick: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 42.4%Dan Zaksheske: 18.2%Outkick: 18.0%Biased Writer Voice42.4%This article: 6.6%Dan Zaksheske: 2.2%Outkick: 2.4%Indoctrination6.6%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Dan Zaksheske: 5.1%Outkick: 2.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Dan Zaksheske: 1.1%Outkick: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

531 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.6%attributed speech512writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageThe league • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 71 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The league

0%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-43.9 ptsWriter: 43.9%The league: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%The league: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%The league: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.