OutKick⁠97%

NBA Tanking Hits Pathetic New Level With Record-Setting Blowouts ⁠94%

By Ian Miller⁠0%

4/5/2026, 1:00:18 AM

Topics: Nba, Clay Travis, Espn, Bkt
Keywords: Nba, Clay Travis, Espn, Bkt

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 69.7% saturation with 381 hits. Analysis detected 2,098 faulty-reasoning hits from 547 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 89.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,425 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.30% of the article peer group.

The NBA is not in a good place. 
Well, that's an understatement. 
It's in a very, very bad place. 
Many of the problems bubbling under the surface of the modern NBA seem to be coming to a head in the 2025-2026 season, culminating in the historically embarrassing product now being put out night after night. 
Despite just 82 total games in a season spread out over 165-176 days, many star players can't be bothered to play in all of them. 
Load management has become a dreaded tradition, to the point where the league has repeatedly tried to cut down on rest days. 
To avoid more embarrassment from the lax enforcement of the traveling rule, the NBA then added "gathering" to allow for a seemingly ever-increasing number of steps. 
Then there's the fact that, for some inexplicable reason, the NBA decided it was a good idea to alienate half the country with overt left-wing politics. 
It didn't work. 
RELATED: Here's The Latest Example Of Why The NBA Has Become A Joke 
Then there's the other big problem. 
Tanking. 
Tanking and lack of effort is an inescapable part of the modern game, and people are noticing. 
Tim Reynolds on X posted this jaw-dropping stat on Saturday morning: "There have been two days in NBA history, spanning 80 years, where at least nine games were played with an average margin of victory being at least 24 points. 
Only two such days. 
In 80 Years. 
One was (Friday), the other was Sunday." 
And as Clay Travis pointed out in response, this is why the NBA's new television deals are going to be a disaster for broadcasters. 
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. 
(Mick Akers/Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune News Service via Getty Images) 
NBA Is Going To Keep Shrinking And Costing More Money 
Travis posted on X in response to these stats that there will be "studies written on the billions of dollars US media companies will use on the NBA TV contract." 
He then compared it to the "Titanic of sports media rights deals." 
Not only because the NBA is declining in popularity as right-wing fans have fled, the product disintegrates, and bankable stars age out with few big name replacements, but because other leagues are going to want similar numbers. 
Particularly, the most aggressive and ruthless league in the US sports landscape, the NFL. 
It's really a remarkable combination of factors. 
ESPN, for some reason, decided to invest billions in the NBA. 
Whether due to political alignment, or a misplaced view of the value of the league's rights, or some other unknown factor, they gave Adam Silver $76 billion over 11 years for roughly 80 games per year, the NBA Finals, and several other events. 
Meanwhile, several World Baseball Classic games got similar or better ratings than last year's NBA Finals. 
And in doing so, they opened themselves up to the NFL coming back demanding more money. 
So they're going to increase their cost to broadcast the most important league in the market, all because they spent a fortune on the least important. 
Meanwhile, the league is repaying them by having non-competitive games featuring disinterested players putting in as little effort as possible, if they can even be bothered to play at all. 
Brilliant. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.9%Ian Miller: 11.4%Outkick: 8.8%Confirmation Bias26.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 1.3%Outkick: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Ian Miller: 3.7%Outkick: 5.3%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.9%Outkick: 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.6%Ian Miller: 1.1%Outkick: 1.9%Hindsight Bias6.6%This article: 6.8%Ian Miller: 5.8%Outkick: 6.1%Overconfidence Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 10.7%Outkick: 12.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.2%Outkick: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.7%Outkick: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.1%Outkick: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 1.7%Outkick: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Ian Miller: 2.3%Outkick: 2.5%Pessimism Bias18.3%This article: 58.9%Ian Miller: 14.9%Outkick: 12.8%Negativity Bias58.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 1.5%Outkick: 3.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Ian Miller: 3.7%Outkick: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error12.1%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.5%Outkick: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 4.2%Outkick: 5.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Ian Miller: 2.7%Outkick: 2.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 3.3%Outkick: 5.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 1.4%Outkick: 1.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.1%Outkick: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 2.2%Outkick: 3.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Ian Miller: 0.4%Outkick: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.1%Outkick: 0.4%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 3.1%Outkick: 4.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 1.9%Outkick: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Ian Miller: 2.3%Outkick: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 11.3%Ian Miller: 3.1%Outkick: 2.3%False Dilemma11.3%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.8%Outkick: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.1%Outkick: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.8%Ian Miller: 13.0%Outkick: 11.5%Hasty Generalization27.8%This article: 0.2%Ian Miller: 0.9%Outkick: 1.2%Red Herring0.2%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 1.0%Outkick: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.8%Ian Miller: 6.3%Outkick: 10.0%Appeal to Emotion8.8%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 2.0%Outkick: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 30.9%Ian Miller: 4.2%Outkick: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)30.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 1.6%Outkick: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.3%Outkick: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.1%Outkick: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.3%Outkick: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.8%Ian Miller: 2.1%Outkick: 4.3%Anecdotal12.8%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.2%Outkick: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.4%Ian Miller: 1.1%Outkick: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.4%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.1%Outkick: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.0%Outkick: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.4%Outkick: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.7%Outkick: 1.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.8%Ian Miller: 0.5%Outkick: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy4.8%This article: 12.8%Ian Miller: 1.3%Outkick: 2.1%Unattributed Quote12.8%This article: 7.3%Ian Miller: 1.1%Outkick: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 69.7%Ian Miller: 16.5%Outkick: 18.0%Biased Writer Voice69.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.8%Outkick: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Miller: 0.3%Outkick: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Ian Miller: 4.3%Outkick: 2.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.5%This article: 7.9%Ian Miller: 1.6%Outkick: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.9%

547 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers22%attributed speech427writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageTim Reynolds • 40 words • 100.0% coverageTim Reynolds • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTim Reynolds • 3 words • 0.0% coverageTim Reynolds • 7 words • 0.0% coverageClay Travis • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageClay Travis • 30 words • 100.0% coverageClay Travis • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Clay Travis

100%flagged-word coverage
66 attributed words55% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Biased Writer Voice-47.2 ptsWriter: 83.6%Clay Travis: 36.4%36.4%Unattributed Quote+45.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Clay Travis: 45.5%45.5%Politically Right Leaning -14.8 ptsWriter: 14.8%Clay Travis: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%Clay Travis: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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