Let Shaq's Legacy Stand on Its Own



GREAT photo: via InsideHoops (and somewhere else)

Shaq retires and within nanoseconds, the sports world goes into a tizzy for good, comical, awful and amazingly predictable reasons.

·    The good: fans of all likes come up with their favorite Shaq moments. The smack talking through the media rings for some while the absurd backboard breaking dunks and his All-Star, run-the-point plays stick out.

·    The comical: though he’ll be missed on the parquet floors around the NBA, it was a chance to revisit some of his great and not-so-great offerings to the entertainment world. (You still can’t stop the reign, though.)

·    The awful: Shaq appeared to have split temperaments – the jolly court jester that was revered the world over and the surly, insecure (and apparently, philandering) side of him earned some ire over the years.

·    The amazingly predictable: as soon as he made the announcement, immediately, people asked the questions about his legacy.

It’s the latter that catches my attention more than the rest.

Why do we even need to rank him?

Shaquille O’Neal is one of the best players of all time. You know it, your mother and father know it, your siblings know it, your neighbors know it…. Heck, everyone who ever held a basketball in their hands for two seconds knows it. His combination of offensive awareness and imposing size was unheard of until he arrived in the NBA; even against the likes of Wilt Chamberlain, who was a physical force in the smaller and seemingly grounded floor game of the 1950s and 1960s. Four championships, Rookie of the Year, 1999 MVP and Finals MVP honors, perennial All-Star appearances, 14-time All-NBA selection, three-time All-Defense… he’s a legend in his own right.

Yet, this idea that he has to be ranked among the all-time greats perturbs me a bit. Let’s be for real, it’s not as if extra cleaning is guaranteed for his Hall of Fame plaque when we do such a thing.

Shaq’s style blended brute force with a shockingly soft touch around the rim. His size at 7-foot-1 and 325 pounds at his absolute prime with the Lakers made it a chore to battle him on the boards, despite not being lauded as a great rebounding center. Defensively, he could have been an absolute monster if he cared – save for the Lakers three-peat where Phil Jackson made him give a hoot – but who in their right minds wanted to challenge him on a layup? He never really had to display a full array of offensive skills like other men in the pivot, but he was highly capable of knocking down a few jumpers and was an underrated passer for someone who demanded the ball as often as he did.

And that’s sort of what stands out to me about O’Neal’s career. He was DOMINANT for someone who didn’t show the full repertoire or maximize his total potential. Then again, he was DOMINANT for someone who never had to display every basketball move conceivable. In his formative years with Orlando, while he put up absurd numbers, he was still being schooled by veteran centers that gave him clinics on brutality. His petulance aside, it’s hard to imagine that he didn’t pick up a few pointers from each of the players he combated with, respectfully or not.

O’Neal was an uncanny player not only for his offensive greatness, but offensive greatness despite flaws. We always said,”imagine if he hit his free throws”. Well, he won four titles, received numerous individual accolades and made over $200 million on the court while compiling an awful career free throw percentage (52.7%). Unlike baseball, that one flaw isn’t going to keep him away from the Hall of Fame for years and years.

He played with power in a league that tried its best to emphasize finesse; the physicality of the 80s and 90s stripped the Association of easy-to-market, but unrealistic to achieve beauty. When he claimed himself to be the LCL – Last Center Left – he was right in more ways than one. The NBA for most of its history was ruled by the pivot from George Mikan to Shaq himself; spanning six decades of letting the big man go to work when it counts. Even the Jordan years were run by the bigs in most other cities; whether it was at the center or power forward position as most teams ran their offenses through them.

He played in the second half of the careers of other legendary centers in Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson while also adjusting to a changing league. In fact, he was catalyst to the single greatest change in the NBA since the three-point line; the restricted zone. Even among those phenomenal players – throw all the greats in the league’s sixty-five year history – how many forced the league to change the rule book and court parameters? A handful.

The story is all there. He was a unique player who bridged across two staunchly different eras of the NBA. His impact to the game was so strong that some in the media still believed that he was the final piece to title hopes for Cleveland last year. They believed that even for ten minutes a game for Boston this year, Shaq could have helped raised Banner #18. Those last two seasons of his career are a testament to how much of a legend he is. His stature on the game allowed for the iconic past to be larger than reality.

For some reason, when a player with a substantial career in a team sport retires, we immediately go into debate mode about her or his credentials and standing. We’re supposed to give Shaq some sort of place atop other greats at his position while likely overhyping or underwhelming the contributions of his contemporaries. We’ve already had enough people overreact and cry foul about the potential of another likely Hall of Famer. Do we have to do go through this again?

He stands on his own without any posturing from us. He doesn’t need #TwitterSports debates that are full of manipulated stats and name dropping. Nor does he need the damning articles that bring up his more sinister side. He doesn’t need validation among anyone, not even his peers. All he needs to know is when to show up to the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Massachusetts and what time will his induction speech will be.

Say What?!?!: I posted this on what’s an important day. It’s been ten years. As mentioned on ‘The Exchange’ on Tuesday, there’s been no greater influence in my life than my parents and no greater champion of the cause than my dad. Instead of writing something new, I figured this would be a good time to take you back. Proud to be your son, Bobby.

Is Thirty Seconds Too Much to Ask?

Last night’s debacle called the Men's Divison I National Championship Game is likely still turning stomachs. Yes, a win’s a win and a title is a title if you’re a fan of the boys from Storrs; so congratulations to the UConn Huskies that actually scored a basket, blocked a shot or grabbed a rebound. That Butler played in back to back national championship games is a testament to the program, even in an era that has been (deservedly) maligned for watered down programs and greater NCAA malfeasance.

Yet, the greatest take away from the game for this Scribe wasn’t how bad both teams performed – and they were awful. It’s something far more maddening and still unconscionable.

Is it time to lower the men’s college basketball shot clock again?

It’s important to note the men’s game because as you’ll see tonight with the women’s national championship game, despite the physical differences in the players, there’s a quicker pace in their game.

"Okay, I got 24 seconds to work."

Some history: The NBA introduced the shot clock in 1954 after finding that fan and media interest declined year after year (the league itself was just eight years old) due to low-scoring, stall-fests. The introduction of the shot clock is credited to Danny Biasone, the founding owner of the Syracuse Nationals (they eventually became the Philadelphia 76ers) as he experimented with a clock during a scrimmage. He found that there was an immediate increase in offense, game pace and excitement in the game and pushed the Association to implement the clock in time for the start of the 1954-55 season.

Essentially, the game was reborn. Removed from the mere extension of the peach-basket era of the patriarch’s design (James Naismith), new strategies and maneuvers were developed and the five positions on the floor evolved in ways not previously conceived. Of course coaches found ways to stall anyway; stalling occurred far less regularly while remaining only a way to ensure a win in the final frames of a contest instead being a defined style of play.

The shot clock saved the professional game as other pro leagues across the globe adopted the standard 24-second clock. However, the NCAA was peculiarly slow. It was the women, not men, that played with the shot clock first in 1969; an experimental 30-second clock that was made permanent in 1970 and remains to this day. The testosterone crew added the clock, eventually, in 1985.

1985.

It was a 45-second shot clock and one that met decades of resistance long before its arrival as this Sports Illustrated article from 1982 explains. The clock was reduced again to 35 seconds after 1993-94.

Yet, somehow, the college game continues to be defined by a deliberate pace. Whereas the NBA was raked through the coals for a sluggish pace in the immediate years of the post-Jordan era – despite its existence during the Jordan era – the NCAA game managed to become slower and slower and slower.

Maybe the watered-down talent argument has a lot of merit. After all, in one of the most insane tournament games of all time, the UNLV Runnin’ Rebels ran all over Loyola Marymount in the 1990 Elite Eight, 131-101 (check the 1:50 mark). The eventual national champions boasted one of, it not the greatest college basketball team of all time (not just the early shot clock era), led by mad scientist head coach Jerry Tarkanian and future NBA stars in Larry Johnson, Greg Anthony and Stacey Augmon. That amazing output in 1990 wasn’t just an offensive explosion as that team played exceptional defense all season long, allowing that end of the court to set the pace on the opposite side. [Keep in mind that for LM, Paul Westhead orchestrated a successful high-tempo offense himself.]

Yet, there’s something to be said that even in a shorter shot clock of 35 seconds, last night had the lowest scoring title game since 1946. Butler (which might be better than these back to back appearances show) played in the two lowest scoring games since the adoption of the clock. Let’s not forget that Maryland scintillated the world in 2002 against Indiana in a 64-52 contest, the third lowest of the era.

via AOL - if you can find it.

Now, shaving the clock isn’t just some manufactured manner of getting NBA fans to enjoy the men’s college game, though whether some like it or not, having those eyes are vital to viewership, sponsorships and for neutral site games, attendance. Lowering the shot clock again would compel better decision making by coaches and players.

College coaches are some of the most conservative play designers in sports; preferring to milk each second of the shot clock. They rather minimize mistakes and at the last second, outshoot zone defense (don’t laugh). This is made easier if there are some good rebounders on the team to extend the possession. Players seem to be pretty good at over-passing and running around the perimeter until the clock goes :01. It’s an exercise in stamina and strategy, but certainly not efficiency.

If you quicken the pace a bit, players could consider taking shots as soon as they are open. In fact, players might consider moving a second or two sooner to set them up for a better shot. Coaches should encourage their floor leaders to play with more options. On occasion, a player might decide to take the game on his shoulders and avoid going into six overtimes while having to play the next day.

Or better yet, you don’t have a scenario like the ’08 title game between Memphis and Kansas. There’s a reason for the reputation coach John Calipari as a terrible game manager late in games despite the NBA-level talent he has managed to recruit over the years. With a seven point lead in the final minutes of the second half, the Tigers, with Derrick Rose and Chris Douglas-Roberts, seemed to play keep-a-way, but Kansas – knowing that Memphis was a poor free-throw shooting squad – kept fouling and creating possessions on the other end. Kansas chipped at the lead and forced overtime. In the extra session, Rose and CD-R (leading scorer in the tournament) essentially stuck with a clock-milking perimeter game as opposed to attacking the basket after the Jayhawks jumped to and maintained the early lead.

These kids were recruited for a myriad of basketball skills that should be displayed more than the current game allows. This is a game that can use more attacks to the rim, not just brilliant backdoor cuts. This is a game that can truly benefit from displaying cleverly used, but aesthetically pleasing athleticism as opposed to one actual dunk in the last two title contests – the most bizarre stat in recent basketball history.

This isn’t to say that Brad Stevens or Jim Calhoun should flip the switch and become Mike D’Antoni and even Don Nelson next winter. Stevens built a good defensive program that could probably kick up the tempo a bit more once the Bulldogs get into conference play (because it’s easy to drop buckets against overmatched, non-conference lightweights in November). Calhoun, meanwhile, can always recruit the top players around the country and despite the typical ‘my way or the highway’ credo coaches live by, he could let the talents somewhat dictate the style of play.

The shorter shot clock would allow coaches to flaunt their supposed genius a bit, too.

Stop cringing. It'll be okay.

Now, some will say “Jason, you admitted that you don’t follow the college game very much anymore, so you can’t speak on it”. Yet, this is the main reason why it’s so difficult for a pro snob such as me to re-invest in college basketball. It’s not about tailoring the game to bring in more viewers or sell more merchandise. It’s about seeing how good these kids truly are when facing an inherent challenge in advancing the ranks of the game.

The game is too similar to high school except that instead of playing teens that already reached their athletic peak; they’re playing the cream of the secondary school crop. There’s a tremendous challenge in playing against the best young talents from top notch high schools and AAU programs. Yet, just as students have to adjust to an advance structure of education in the classroom with professors, lectures and tougher grading policies, as a player ascends in his career, he should be able to mature with a more advanced structure a higher level of game should imply.

Whenever a nationally televised championship elicits so much moaning and groaning about the quality of play, we expect the league to respond. More often than not, they have; from the NHL’s post-lockout rule changes to the NFL’s limitations on defensive contact to the NBA’s adoption of clear path fouls and restricted area in the paint. Some of these changes still ruffle feathers, but there’s no question that they have encouraged an evolution of game play by forcing coaches to expand playbooks and players to make physical adjustments.

Yet, this one modification won’t exactly threaten the look of the court, the physicality of the players or the playbook coaches employ. It will encourage the system to display the absolute best their players and coaches have to offer.

Now, about that pointless possession arrow…

Why So Many Race Conversations About the NBA?

[This Scribe has been sick, otherwise, this would have been published over the weekend. Hey, black history, as that of everyone in this world, is written every day, not just February.]

Recently, yours truly participated in a panel about the perception of African-Americans in the media at the CUNY School of Law which was put together by the school’s Black Law School Association chapter. It was a privilege to be a part of this for three reasons.

One, those who attended already had a long day of classes and they stuck around to listen to my drivel instead of going home right away. Two, the fellow panelists are far more distinguished than I am, yet, I felt like I was on that level, if only for an evening. Finally, for my perspectives to be considered in what is always a lightning rod for controversy said a lot about where I’ve been, where I’m hoping to go and how much more I have to learn.

From the diverse angles of media, law, finance, legislation, politics and academia, all of us were asked about how the images of blacks have an effect on daily life.

The moderator and longtime friend, Jamaal Bailey, directed several questions unique to the expertise of each panelist. He asked me that of all the sports I follow and have covered, in which sports organization does the topic of race come up with the most.

It was interesting because no matter what level of play, race does come up in every sport. It’s not just about how someone will espouse ignorance, but it’s also about what each observer brings to the table. Our experiences can cloud or clarify what we see on the field, can enhance or debase what we talk about and can inspire or belittle those with an investment in these contests.

However, considering that this was focused towards a predominantly black audience, I explained that I found race come up most often in two sports; boxing and basketball, specifically the NBA brand. And although boxing has always found a way to use prejudice to its promotional advantage, that’s certainly not the case for the NBA.

Courtesy of technovore

So why are there more race discussions about the NBA than everywhere else in our sports landscape? Well, it would be too easy to give this Scribe’s take, though you can always ask. However, I asked this question recently through social media and received a few interesting responses. What you’ll read might speak to a common thread, but each brings something else to consider. It’s easy to agree or disagree, but one thing’s certain, we don’t talk about any other league like this.

Jessica Bader (Colleague with The Perpetual Post): It's the one major sport where the athletes never wear a helmet (making them individuals rather than part of the faceless masses of the team) and the one in which the uniforms expose the most skin (disastrous short-lived Chicago White Sox experiments notwithstanding).


Merv Matthew (Assistant Professor at DePauw University, Indiana): It's the only league of the top four where a single minority group has all the best players. Football has a lot of top black players, but they also have the Mannings, Brady, etc. Hockey has a bunch of foreign dudes, and baseball has a pretty big mix. When was the last time anyone other than a black guy was in consideration for being the best player in the NBA?

I'm not sure how much the skin exposure counts, but Jessica has a point with the faces being exposed. People get to see the NBA athletes more than any other athletes on their playing fields. Throw in the fact that the smaller rosters make anonymity even harder to achieve in the NBA and it becomes easier to understand.


Pedro Cruz (Previously contributed to piece for Norman Einstein’s): It could be that the mainstream consciousness still sees predominantly white as the norm, the baseline upon which everything else can be added, like a junior partner in a firm, to compose a minority, but never really to take majority control. It may be what fuels the "fear" of the United States becoming predominantly Latino by 2050, the lionizing of segregation-era baseball, the continued worship of a ballplayer from that era still being hailed as the greatest player of all time even though he never played a regulation game against a player not from his own race.

It could also be what fuels many folks to speak of hockey's "old-school" mentality, of how NHL players are of a unique quality...even though they fight far more often than any other American athlete and routinely take cheap shots at each other. Why was Donald Brashear considered such a dirty player when he was no more dirty that Marty McSorley or any other NHL tough, and was the victim in his most infamous on-ice incident? Why is Peyton Manning, or more comparably Brian Urlacher, always hailed for his intelligence and leadership while Ray Lewis is praised for his physicality and brute strength? As a baseball guy, I hear some similar things about Latino athletes, especially black Latino athletes. Maybe the discussion will mirror that of the NBA if black Latino players become a large majority…

Mainstream consciousness just sees white as normal, along with it this protestant work ethic which seems to be freely assumed of white players more easily than those of color, leadership roles naturally belonging to them too, and anything outside of that as a "problem" in need of solving. The NBA is predominantly black. This may well be the reason. Infuriating, I know.


Shirley Huang, Esq. (Attorney in Ft. Myers, FL): I think the NFL and NBA both have a lot of discussion about race but it's slightly different. In the NFL, it's a white-black thing mostly when it comes to quarterbacks and everyone else... There's the whole "quarterbacks (i.e. predominantly White players) are the intelligent ones" and everyone else (Black players) just has athleticism" debate. The thing with the NBA might be that the highest paid players are (probably--I'm just guessing because I don't pay attention to salary reports) all Black. You have fans that are of all races who might "love" Kobe Bryant or LeBron James but hate Black people.

I think part of it is also due to the "thug mentality" that some might believe dominates the league. You have very few white American players in the league so I'm sure there has to be some resentment there. I mean look at that one guy who tried to create an all-white basketball league that was going to be all about "fundamentals."[Ed. Note: ah, yes, can't ever forget this]. There's already a league that's all about fundamentals; it's called the WNBA!


David Lee (Also contributed to piece for Norman Einstein’s): NHL gets a lot of conversations about race as well, seeing how it’s predominantly white. In fact you could say it’s more drastic in the NHL than the NBA. In the NBA there are several All Stars (or former ones) who were not black (Nash, Nowitzki, Yao etc). In the NHL, there aren’t many. The only current player I can think of is (Jarome) Iginla.

Perpetually Posting

Ladies & gents, check me out!

This week, there'll be a lot of Perpetual Post work this week. Tonight, I'll jump onto another podcast, discussing NFL free agency with Chris Pummer. Chris and I will bring the discourse to text tomorrow on the site.

Later this week, I will be covering Opening Night for Red Bull Arena in Harrison, NJ. In addition to talking about the stadium's atmosphere and structure for TPP, I will also give you the first new Scribe video for 2010. For those who didn't see the previous look during its construction, check out last spring's post.

Next week, we will roll out divisional previews. I'll join the conversations on the National League East and Central along with the American League Central.

Finally, in relation to Scribe, your next roundtable is coming later this week; this time, the focus is shifted to the NHL. If you have yet to check out last week's NBA roundtable, do yourself a favor and take time to read parts one and two.

Now, before you ask about college basketball, anyone who has been on this space knows that there's not much said about the game. Last year, for the first time since I could remember television, I didn't tune in for one second of the men's tournament (I did watch the women's final, however). Also, for the third straight year, I did not fill out a bracket.

Because of personal preferences and a rather unwelcoming experience covering a Big East game four years ago, I've pretty much shut myself away from the amateur game. However, as some have noticed on Twitter, I have been asking for NBA prospects that I should keep an eye on. It's understandable that some out there may not like this stance, but considering how little I've seen of John Wall and how I just learned who Evan Turner is, I figured this would be a good time to turn into the game with some interest.

I just hope for you Kentucky fans that John Calipari doesn't get another coaching brainfreeze as he did two years ago for Memphis.

Say What?!?!: Speaking of March Madness, if you missed this month's edition of Norman Einstein's Magazine, take a walk with me and Rodney Brown.

Roundball Roundtable of... Roundness - Part 2

You liked Part 1 of Scribe's first Roundball Rountable of... Roundness? Of course, you did. Here's Part Deux. Once again, the previous questions and bios for those who've come upon this post first.

Everybody JUMP!

Roundball Roundtable of... Roundness - Part 1

Something different for Scribe:

A month from now, the NBA playoffs will take off, getting people into far more heated debates about who’s better than who, which injury hurts more and where will members of the Free Agent Class of 2010 head after the final shot of the season is taken.

So, mark today as special as it’s the first of what will be many roundtables to come. Of course, this isn’t just any blogging roundtable, but one with some twists.

I’ve reached out to three NBA pundits, fans and chatterboxes who can provide different perspectives than what you’ve heard in recent weeks. The questions asked are not going to be “LeBron or Kobe?” and “what’s wrong with _____?”. The responses were quite interesting, to say the least.

Let this roundtable begin with some brief bios on each contributor:

• Stephon Johnson is a name you’ve seen on here before. Beyond having known half my life, he’s a staff writer for the famed New York Amsterdam News, covering a range of news stories as well as hoops for the history African-American weekly paper. In addition, he is also a contributing writer for The Perpetual Post and has done a multitude of music reviews for other websites. Check out his Tumblr and follow on Twitter (Warning: he’s not as good looking as me).
• Rey Moralde is the founder of the very fantastic and popular Los Angeles-based NBA blog, The No Look Pass. Along with great analysis of all four Californian squads (writers for the NorCal teams), if you still think the very existence of Clippers fans is an urban legend or that there’s no such thing as a true Lakers fan, let this site dispel those myths. For further witty banter and superb in-game comedy, you can follow Rey and TNLP on Facebook and Twitter.
• Finally, rounding out this triumvirate is aspiring scribe Kyle Hoffman. A cool cat like Heathcliff (that’s a reference to a Sean Price freestyle), Hoffman is a die-hard Sacramento Kings fan… from Allentown, Pennsylvania? Yes, you read that correctly. A true hoops head, he certainly holds down the fort for other teams as well, as you will read in moments. Follow Monsieur Hoffman on Twitter.

And now, your questions, after the jump...

Scribe Updates - I Still Love You

It's been a rough three week stretch for your 45,329th favorite blogger. Between midterms, papers and... life, you haven't had much to read on here and there has been shockingly little promotion of other works. Here's where things stand now before you check out some newness:

• This week, you'll have a couple of roundtables coming your way on the NBA & NHL as they are steamrolling towards the postseason.
• We're doing MLB division previews at The Perpetual Post. I will take a look at my favorite division to watch in the last two years, the National League West. Top notch pitching, overlooked defenses, enviable weather, Arizona's 975 uniform combinations. There's a very good chance that I will add chatter for another non-eastern division as well.
• I underpromoted this month's edition of Norman Einstein's Magazine, which is a shame. However, as we strive for, the works is always timely. Do yourselves a favor and read the goodness.
• I don't find myself that interesting of a person, however, I invite you to ask questions that may be too long for Twitter, but just as easy to access. Get your Formspring on about all things sports and whatever else comes to mind.
• Finally, a site design update: closer to launch than it appears.

The Deleted Scenes for "Hardwood Graduation" will be published later this afternoon.

Quit Hating and Start Watching

There’s a tendency for us to rain on each other’s parades when a major sporting event captures the attention of many casual fans. This is no more evident when we are discussing significant events in professional hockey, soccer/football and basketball.

Much has been made about the outstanding viewership numbers for yesterday’s Olympic Men’s Hockey Gold Medal Final between Canada and the United States. And why not? If someone said that this thrilling game would have garnered ratings akin to a regular season game in the NFL, most would have laughed, sneered, snickered and belittled the sport, its fans and its elite league, the NHL.

The very fact that the game captured almost 28 million viewers* should bode well for the sport overall. That people in the know are pondering what can the NHL and its broadcasting partners do to carry this momentum into league action speaks to how compelling of a product the sport presents.

Yet, there are equally as many people who have started their “who cares?” rants, “when’s the next big event to pretend to care about” comments and my favorite quips of nonchalance; “when does football/baseball season start?”

Photo Credit to the Vancouver Sun

I just wonder why we take this route for some sports and not others. Why must we dissect its potential or lack thereof? Why must we ask those sports to fix themselves in order to appeal to non-fans and passersby? Why must we demand more of those leagues than we do the staples that take their fans for granted more often than not?

It’s funny because Super Bowl XLIV – a fantastic game, without a doubt – wiped off the bad taste the 2009 NFL season left in many mouths. This past season in the league was one of the least entertaining campaigns in years and the postseason initially carried some of that poor play in the first two rounds. If not for the Jets’ very game performance in Indianapolis (they did blow the lead, though) and the fumbling follies of the Vikings in New Orleans, this past season could have easily gone down as the worst since the late 90s.

This is a league with a fair share of problems on its own; a potential labor strike looms large, a steady stream of player arrests, the back-and-forth on overtime, Brett Favre fatigue, the overlooked story of PED/steroid use, an ongoing battle with Time Warner Cable over the NFL Network, etc.

Yet, few dare to ask what’s wrong with the almighty, omnipotent National Football League.

Beyond the Yankees winning the World Series last October, this past baseball season wasn’t exactly one for the ages. Once again, the controversies loomed larger than the games themselves. PEDs for Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. Josh Hamilton’s relapse. Milton Bradley’s arrival and dismissal from the Cubs. Allegations of Jim Bowden skimming bonus money from Latin American prospects. Mixed (some scathing) reviews for the new Yankee Stadium. The Mets (via Fred Wilpon) and Bernie Madoff. Mark McGwire, over a decade later.

There had been tremendous action in spurts; great pitching from the game’s young guns like Zack Grienke, Felix Hernandez, Tim Lincecum, the underrated Matt Cain and Jair Jurrjens. The usual great play from players you expect like Joe Mauer, Kevin Youkilis, Derek Jeter, Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols. The strong supporting casts that pushed the Yankees and Phillies into the Fall Classic. The birth of MLB Network (and ratings punch to the gut onto ESPN). All of this is forgotten among casual baseball fans.

Yet, few dare to ask how Major League Baseball can regain its footing on the national stage.

Apparently, the North Carolina Tar Heels’ men’s basketball program is going to need help to get into the NCAA Tournament this year. They’ve lost four starters of last year’s title squad to the NBA – Ty Lawson has been outstanding, by the way – and find themselves clawing to keep pace in the ACC. I say apparently because from friends, family & colleagues, last year’s edition of March Madness was one of the least exciting, most anti-climatic and phenomenally unmemorable in recent memory.

The scandals in the NCAA have been mind-numbing within the last decade. Before, it was about point-shaving and a player having ‘extra’ cash in his pocket. This past decade alone gave us testing scandals, coaches exacting physical punishment on players during practice, more testing scandals, even more money passed under the table, an absurd coaching carousel spun by the coaches themselves. And of course, there’s the worst of them all; Patrick Dennehy.

Yet, few dare to ask what can the NCAA do to capture fan interest before March Madness takes over.

Look, I didn’t write this to hate on those sports. In fact, if you read the Blogger profile, you’d see that baseball and football have been near and dear to my heart much of my life. As a once passionate, now bitter observer of college basketball, I pray for the day that the NCAA rights the ship and does right by ALL student-athletes, regardless of gender or sport. Yet, to see the errors in those sports is to almost be a leper of sorts; people want to move on, overlook these issues and pretend that these issues aren't as big, if not bigger than those in the NBA, NHL or soccer/football in the United States.

I wrote this because when we throw shade on each other’s preferences, we tend to forget how imperfect our own favorites are. We tend to think that being a ratings behemoth exonerates these sports from their issues or that being underwhelming according to Nielsen is an indictment.

You don’t have to become a hockey fan after the great play at the Winter Olympics (though you’d be happy if you did). You don’t have to subscribe to NBA League Pass for the remainder of the season to get your stripes (there are only 6 weeks left anyway). You don’t have to call your cable provider to look into FOX Soccer Plus, which just launched today (just try to master FOX Soccer Channel first). What we do need to do, however, is to be fair in how we observe these games. If we’re going to be as scrutinizing of the sports we dislike, give the same treatment to the ones we love.

Otherwise, quit hating and start watching.

Say What?!?!: By the way, with all due respect to Sidney Crosby and his fantastic goal, can someone else in the world give Jarome Igilna (the guy above Crosby in the photo) love for his assist? It was a fantastic set-up by a player who should get far more attention than he gets in the sports world. Maybe it’s gutsy to say it, but if he played for the New York Rangers instead of the Calgary Flames, he’s not only get more attention, but he could be akin to Mark Messier in terms of being a steady, proven veteran leader that could walk the streets of Manhattan with head nod respect from even the most uninterested of puck fans.

*A note about Nielsen ratings; they don’t include out-of-home viewing, which includes sports bars and other public establishments. Since measurement in this space has been modified over the years, these viewers may or may not be counted into the equation, but hockey is as much of a sports bar kind of game as any in North America. This, my friends, is good.

Perpetual

This week will be the first since early November that Scribe takes a turn towards the NBA as it has been a pretty intriguing start to the 2009-10 season so far.

Hopefully, you have taken a look at last Friday's Roundtable discussion that I joined for NBAToday.net, but that's not all. By tomorrow, you'll see my first written effort for the Perpetual Post in which there will be a discourse on Allen Iverson's return to the Philadelphia 76ers. Another will follow in relation to the legacy of Bud Selig as he will step down as the Commissioner of Major League Baseball after the 2012 season.

Tonight, however, you can check out my return to radio (sort of speak) on Perpetual Post Radio.

Howard Megdal, the editor-in-chief, has an outstanding site with a strong roster of contributors (including this guy) that put whatever I am doing to shame. You can gather that I'm more than thrilled at the chance to join this forum.

Because of a hectic Monday, a post that I am working on is being pushed back a day, but I want to solicit thoughts from the masses before it goes up. Did anyone catch this segment on ESPN's (underrated) Outside the Lines?

Unbalanced

If there is one thing missing from the NBA these days, it’s a bitter rivalry. Not the manufactured type that is made from Kobe versus LeBron (and by proxy, Lakers versus Cavaliers) or even Carmelo versus LeBron (Nuggets/Cavaliers). What the NBA fans have clamored for are true, “we can’t stand those guys” rivalries born from seeing the same team more than two times a year and the Finals that may not materialize.

Granted, there are battles between teams that don’t get the national attention during the regular season that they should until the postseason comes around. In the West, San Antonio and Phoenix have provided some fireworks in recent years while Houston and Utah have had intense meet-ups. In the East, Washington and Cleveland traded barbs when the Wizards were a playoff participant while Boston and Chicago are likely to carry over their classic first-round series into the 2009-10 campaign.

However, the truth is that within the same geography is where sports’ greatest passions stir. Though the Los Angeles Lakers and Sacramento Kings had a war of words earlier this decade, it was such a one-sided affair that it’s rarely brought up as one of the NBA’s most known rivalries. Not since the New York Knicks and Miami Heat traded fists and baskets have there been those kinds of regular season games that were hyped because of pure, unabated hatred within the division. Knicks-Heat (or Knicks against everybody in the 1990s) didn’t need to be aesthetically pleasing or be full of offensive superstars with great smiles to attract a crowd because mean mugging and hard fouls made the country ask “what else can these guys do to each other?”

The rule changes that essentially handcuffed defenses took a bit of the necessary surliness out of natural rivalries, but it does not mean that they can’t be reborn. If there’s one area that can be tweaked to bring back these kinds of games, it’s in team schedules themselves. To reemphasize division rivalries, I believe that the 82-game schedule can be modified in a similar vein of their major league peers.

They could take the slightly unbalanced schedule that baseball and the NHL use which features more games within the division, yet will retain the logistics of having visits from every team within the league. They could also rotate two interdivisional games between the other ten teams that would guarantee an equal amount of visits to every city over a five-year period in the way the NFL does in its schedule.

Sounds confusing? Let it be explained by using the Knicks’ schedule (trying to get to some games this season, so sue me for using the local team):

Current NBA Schedule: (H=home, A=away)

4 games apiece versus teams within the Atlantic Division (2H/2A) = 16 games

• Boston, New Jersey, Toronto and Philadelphia all split home and away dates evenly.

3-4 games apiece versus teams in other divisions within the conference = 36

• 3 games a apiece against two teams in the Central Division (one series of 2H/1A, one series of 1H/2A) = 6
• Cleveland visits New York once while the Knicks play there twice this year. Milwaukee comes to New York twice while the Knicks play there once.
• 4 games apiece against three teams in the Central Division (2H/2A) = 12
• Chicago, Detroit and Indiana have even splits of home and away games this season
• 3 games apiece against two teams in the Southeast Division (one series of 2H/1A, one series of 1H/2A) = 6
• Orlando visits New York once while the Knicks play there twice this year. Miami comes to New York twice while the Knicks play there once.
• 4 games apiece against three teams in the Southeast Division (2H/2A) = 12
• Charlotte, Washington and Atlanta have even splits of home and away games this season.

2 games apiece versus teams in the Western Conference (one home, one away) = 30

82 total regular season games (41 home, 41 away)

Got it? Good.

Suggested NBA Schedule:

5 games apiece versus teams within same division = 20 games

• Five games apiece against two teams (3H/2A) = 10
• Here, Boston and New Jersey would come to MSG three times and the Knicks would visit both markets twice.
• Five games apiece against two teams (2H/3A) = 10
• Here, Toronto and Philadelphia would come to MSG twice and the Knicks would visit both markets three times.

These teams will alternate the third home game every other year; the Celtics would visit New York a third time one year and host the Knicks a third time the following season.

3-4 games apiece versus teams in other divisions within same conference = 30 games

• 3 games a apiece against two teams in the Central Division (2H/1A) = 6
• Here, Cleveland and Milwaukee would come to New York twice and the Knicks would visit those markets once. Next season, this could switch depending on the teams.
• 3 games a apiece against two teams in the Central Division (1H/2A) = 6
• Here, Detroit and Indiana would come to New York twice and the Knicks would visit those markets once. Next season, this could switch depending on the teams.
• 4 games apiece against one team in the Central Division (2H/2A) = 12
• Chicago would have the even split of home and away games this season. This four-game series would rotate among the remaining teams in the division until all five teams in the division played this series within five years.

Repeat the Central Division plan for the Southeast Division:

• Orlando and Miami would come to New York twice and the Knicks would visit those markets once. The Knicks play Charlotte and Washington twice in those cities and host them once this season. They would have the four-game series with Atlanta. Similar to the Central Division, teams would alternate all three kinds of series over five seasons.

2 games apiece versus teams in the Western Conference (one home, one away) = 30

• This would remain unchanged.

82 total regular season games (41 home, 41 away)

Of course, there are logistical reasons for why games are scheduled in the current format that us fans and the media aren’t exactly privy to or don’t keep up with. For example, every season a few teams will go on lengthy road trips for annual events such as conference and national tournaments in college sports or local events like the famous San Antonio Stock and Rodeo Show that keeps the Spurs away from home for about two weeks in February. There is also the fact that ten cities house both NHL and NBA teams in the same arena, making scheduling an intricate dance during the offseason for both leagues. Finally, relocation and expansion have spread the pool of games a bit thin; the NBA has certainly done a great job in trying to retain the pre-Charlotte/New Orleans/Memphis/Oklahoma City schedule with respect to travel itineraries.

Yet, it’s unlikely that there will be a change in the amount of teams in the league any time soon. Despite economic uncertainties and mismanagement of some franchises, this would be the perfect time to explore changing the schedule to give a bit more meaning – literal and emotional – to crowning division champions with the added value of a properly calibrated unbalanced schedule.

Thoughts/Twittering

For the second weekend in a row, I am away from home for another family gathering. No disrespect towards the fine folks at Time Warner Cable, but this brings me into Comcast Country, where the NFL Network and its Red Zone compliment will dominate the television for seven hours. Considering that we are 30 minutes away from Philadelphia, I'm in a rabid Steelers home (yes, this is possible) and they still show New York games in the area, there will be plenty to salivate over to the point of dehydration.

With all of this said, please feel free to once again join the live Twittering and leave comments/thoughts/questions here on this post for all to respond to. Though I may still lean on Field Pass here and there, today will be the first time I have seen the Red Zone channel in action, so please provide some insights.

By the way, since you are likely being innudated with pre-game shows, if you have not read 'Superfluous' and 'Basics (Again)', take a moment to do so.

Now, a few thoughts:

Ouch: I met Chris Arreola two years ago after a fight in Las Vegas back in 2007 (that trip being the genesis of Scribe, by the way). Nice guy and as those who watched the title fight last night on HBO between him and Vitali Klitschko, he's got a ton of pride that showed itself in an emotional post-fight interview. Yet, it was pretty sad to see despite his best efforts, it was impossible for him to gain any traction against the taller, rangier and more experienced Klitschko. Vitali schooled him in every facet last night in Los Angeles and though Arreola made him work more in the early rounds than any previous fight, it was damn near clinical.
Arreola should remain in the mix for heavyweight supremacy, but unless there is a legitimate challenger who can match either Vitali or Wladimir in terms of height and precision while adding better ring movement, it'll be hard to knock the brothers of the perch.

Ouch (Again): Spending time with the family means that on occasion, you might miss some action. The latest chapter in the legend of Florida QB Tim Tebow finds him fighting the flu and a concussion sustained in a 41-7 blowout of Kentucky. Already Gators fans and the media are moving their hands towards the big red panic button as hopes of a third national title hinge on his health.
So for those of you that don't hate the Gators, how would you handle the personnel with or without the fearless leader?

They got that baseball thing going on... : Beyond the fanbases themselves, is it me or is there a noticeable lack of buzz and interest around the Yankees and Red Sox postseason appearances (the latter not yet official)? Around the baseball playoffs in general?

On the flip side... : When was the last time you noticed such anticipation for the return of both the NHL (just over a week from now) and the NBA (just over a month)?

Threat?

If you haven't heard, the commissioners of the four major North American sports leagues sat down with Sam Walker of the Wall Street Journal to discuss a wealth of topics ranging from the effects of the recession to who has season tickets for teams in other leagues.

An interesting part of the discussion centered around the global reaches of these leagues - more specifically, the NBA - compared to soccer/football. Outside of fans of the sport and interested business partners in media and advertising, few in the United States are aware of how it has grown in exposure over the past few years. The very fact that ESPN (which has secured rights to nearly everything imaginable that isn't the NHL in the past two years) lost the rights to broadcast the UEFA Champions League to FOX Soccer Channel and Setanta Sports a few weeks ago shows that the game is starting to gain a foothold in a country whose apathy is well-documented.

Yet, there's a prevailing thought, according to questions posed to the commissioners by Walker, that soccer is taking North American turf without even saying thank you while 'our' leagues may need to invest more resources internationally.



While I encourage you to watch the entire series, I would love to know your thoughts on this issue; has soccer/football stolen the thunder of the North American leagues? Should baseball, the NFL and the NHL continue to follow the NBA's lead in trying to build a successful global presence? More importantly, does soccer's growth north of Mexico actually stunt the other leagues or is there plenty of room at the table?

Also, as you may have noticed, there's a new poll, which in part was inspired by this gathering.

Don't be shy. All thoughts are welcome as usual.

Experimental

Will some of the NBA's biggest critics finally get what they want?

For a number of years - mostly, if not all in the post-Jordan era - there have been grumblings of changing the playoff format in order to provide the so-called best matchups involving the largest television markets in the country for the sake of Nielsen ratings. Yet, there is something else at play that critics will pay close attention to that will be taking place in the smallest of cities.

The NBA Developmental League will experiment with a new wrinkle in the playoff format; allowing division titlists to select their first round opponents.

Hmmmmm...

The D-League, which has sixteen teams dispersed in three divisions, has a three-tiered playoff tree for eight teams. The first and second rounds are single-game elimination with their Finals being the best two-of-three series.

Of course, you must compare this to big brother; which has thirty teams split along (mostly) geographic lines into two conferences and three divisions apiece. The postseason is a sixteen-team party with four tiers (Conference Quarters, Conference Semis, Conference Finals and NBA Finals) in which each series is in a best-of-seven format.

If you recall that in recent years, the NBA made two changes in the playoff format; lengthening the first-round/Conference Quarterfinals to that best-of-seven (must win four games) format in 2003 and the 2006 seeding change that assured home-court advantage will be granted to the teams with the best records, regardless if a division winner has a lesser record than the best non-division winners.

Now, we've moved past the controversy of the first-round extension (thank you, 2007 for Golden State and 2008 with Atlanta's near upset), yet the later change proves how much of a struggle it has been to give credence to those division championships.

While there may not be much consternation about the division winners this year as those crowns are either already decided or close to it, we found ourselves in this scenario as recently as 2006 when both San Antonio and Cleveland boasted better records than Utah (Northwest), Toronto (Atlantic) and Miami (Southeast). What the '06 decision did was quell the anger that had existed during the Eastern Conference's downward spiral from the late nineties on. Yet, it was akin to taking care of the symptom as opposed to the illness.

In order for there to be little dispute about playoff seeding and divisional relevance, I'd argue that there needs to be a greater emphasis during the regular season.

As it stands now, each team plays its divisional opponents four times each (16 games), remaining conference teams either three or four times (36) and teams in the other conference twice apiece (30) to make the 82-game schedule. While it's hard to envision a scenario where a team can split their season series with every team in the league, the possibility that they can do so with at least their divisional rivals isn't too far fetched. As divisional record can be a tie-breaker between squads with identical records, shouldn't that portion of the standings serve as the start of eliminating some of this controversy?

From a glance at what the schedule is made of, I ask you to consider this;

• Each team will continue to play teams in the other conference twice in a season, one home and one away game (30 - 15 home and 15 away)
  
  
• Each team plays eight conference opponents three times each and two conference opponents four times each
• For the eight opponents: one home and one away with the third game alternating between teams, depending on home dates needed to be filled (24 - 12 home and 12 away)
• For the two remaining: two home and two away, with the two teams in this bracket alternating every season until all ten non-division teams in the conference have rotated through the schedule (8 - 4 home and 4 away)
  
  
• Each team plays divisional rivals five times each, with the fifth game alternating between each team every season, depending on amount of home dates needed to be filled (20)

Again, there must be other considerations, such as the scheduling logistics between arena operators, their NHL roommates, NCAA indoor sports tournaments and major local events such as San Antonio's Stock Show & Rodeo. Yet, this could bring meaning to the division titles before we even get into the annual debates about playoff seeding. This can also create what the NBA has been missing since the late-ninties; a truly heated rivalry between teams within close proximity.

These are just thoughts, but as I'm currently doing in jury deliberation, I'm open-minded to hear all suggestions and questions.

Unplugged

I cannot recall the last time I've felt this... unplugged, disconnected, off the grid, whatever you may call it.

Without going into lengthy and boring details, it's been a rough week to say the least. Now, with a moment to breathe and catch up, two quick thoughts.

• Yesterday, your favorite Scribe took part in what you can call a one-day mentorship program where alumni descended onto campus to coach current juniors (albeit, one that has been quarantined from the rest of the world, as we discovered upon our arrival - and none of us are sick, thankfully). While this was about coaching students in their approach for future interviews and the like, the program triggered a thought on the discussion of who may win this year's Coach of the Year award in the NBA.
  This year, the votes should come down to two men: Erik Spoelstra for the Miami Heat and Jerry Sloan for the Utah Jazz. History has shown that the rookie head coach who gets his squad into a postseason berth or a veteran director leads a very young team towards unexpected success will take home the trophy; favoring Spoelstra. However, Sloan has not only dealt with a season full of sidelining injuries to nearly every player in his rotation, but the death of Larry Miller, the team's patriarch, in mid-season. Considering that he has never won the award in his two decades in Salt Lake City, it would not come as a shock that he is bestowed the honor later this spring.
  
  
• En route to Babson yesterday morning, I was reading an article in the latest Sports Business Journal about NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's hopes of adding regular season games to the schedule while shortening the preseason. The SBJ article may be one of the few media bites that actually highlights the cons of lengthening the season; stating the potential reluctance of networks and advertisers to adding more money to already-stuffed coiffers for the league in a challenging economy as well as the physical toll that players can take with one or two more meaningful games.
  Look, as an invested party into the league as a fan and member of the media, extra games are enticing as they satiate an all-time high demand for the most popular sporting league in the United States. If anything, it can help the league's international intentions as teams who play overseas during the regular season do not have to fear losing revenue of a game that could have been played in their home stadiums. Yet, without considering the salaries that they command, the game is quite brutal already on the physiques, mentalities and emotions of these men who play. The extra game increases the risk of a major injury to any player, whether its the star quarterback or the reserve defensive lineman. My hopes are that in consultation with the players and coaches, this is considered at length before a decision is made.
  Then again, there should be other pressing matters for the league beyond enteraining the fans more, such as how to aid former players and address the league's alcohol problem, but another post for another time.

Explain

Because the new national pasttime these days seems to be picking at everything not football or baseball (*cough*, the NBA, *cough, cough*), the recent commentary on the league's economic challeneges is interesting, to say the least.

Bill Simmons of ESPN.com wrote an article that has since made the rounds by way of seemingly paraphrased articles from the Wall Street Journal and of blogs such as Friend of Scribe, Sports Media Watch. Now, you can take Simmons' words with a grain of salt (kosher or not is up to you), along with many others. Yet, in reading the news about the league, NBA fans have come to expect the "this is why I don't watch the NBA" legion to make themselves known. In terms of the current economic malaise, it seems that the league cannot get a favorable shake, even with a rise in merchandise sales, television ratings and popularity in many markets.

While reading the comments on various forums, I can't help but to wonder has anyone pro- or anti-NBA asked this one question: why do professional leagues such as the NBA and NHL (though the latter is understandable in some ways) get slammed for expansion when the NCAA has been guilty of such over the past decade?

In fact, why doesn't the NCAA get slammed for any of the business decisions that, despite the amateur status of the players, are not uncommon from the pros?

There are thousands of people - even some of you who come across Scribe - who are unabashed college sports fans who have varying interests in the professional level. Unfortunately, there is a group out there who love to go out of their way to assert an arrogance that is unbefitting of the college sports fan base as a whole. They go out of their way to slam not just the NBA, but anything that does not exemplify the virtues that their game represents. The critiques are far too long to chonicle here and to be honest, most of them are so ignorant and absurd, your IQ will plummet instantly.

There are nearly 350 basketball and 120 football programs in Division 1 sports. All of the arguments people make about the dilution of talent in the pros is exactly what has gone on in the NCAA realm for years. And before anyone mentions the fact that these are amateurs, advertisers pour dollars in as if they are savvy and headline-grabbing vets in the pros.

Yet, it's the pros that are overreaching and are in dire straights? Please explain.

Jumpball

Even if the World Series resumes tonight (if Mom Nature allows), you're going to need something else to bounce off of this evening. So, on behalf of all fans who have been waiting patiently through the last 133 days for this night...

Let's... GO!

Chuckle

The whole Game 1 thing is too distracting from writing about sports, as the plan was for tonight.

That said, if you haven't seen it before, have a chuckle.



And can you believe that the New York Times gave the movie a positive review? I sure as heck didn't!

Forward (VI)

After this, just one more. A smorgesborgh, if you will, of other sports to watch out for throughout 2008. For now, this sixth installation speaks about the most criticized and self-critical league ever known.

NBA: Will we keep looking for the Next Jordan? A while back in Sideshow, an article from Page 2’s (ESPN) Chuck Klosterman was referenced. It’s probably the most truthful article written in decades, if not ever, about the National Basketball Association. He described the league as “hopelessly, endlessly, incorrigibly narcissistic,” but explained further:

“When people hear the word "narcissistic," they associate it with egotism, but that's not really accurate. The failing of the mythical Narcissus was not his obsession with himself; it was his obsession with his image. And this is what prompts the NBA to wrestle with itself. No other league is as preoccupied with how others feel about its product.”

This is the league, however, that recreated the template of sports superstardom that is hard for anyone to duplicate. The emphasis on the individual is unlike any other from a team sports organization. From the unusual physiques to the near-nudeness due to the uniforms, NBA players are arguably the most recognizable athletes in the industry. The potential for these athletes, however, to transcend the sport took some time and luck to determine.

Baseball players were some of the first due to their early start in the sports landscape. Football stars followed suite once the NFL began to grasp the power of television. Yet, because the NBA has always been in some sort of need for revival, the singular face of the league was undefined. The Bill Russell-led Celtics, Oscar Robertson-led Royals and Wilt Chamberlain’s 76ers and Lakers were not enough, despite their uncanny talents and public demeanors. Race plays a significant role, whether we like it or not, but there was something else that not even Magic Johnson or Larry Bird in the 1980s possessed.

Somehow, Michael Jordan had it.

Before Jordan, it took the press’ unquestioned pulse on the sports world and some social firestorms to make athletes seem bigger than life. Muhammad Ali (and Jack Johnson before him), Joe Louis, any Yankee Hall-of-Famer, Johnny Unitas, Jim Thorpe, you name it. Though Fortune 500 companies had long ago made their foray into sports, the union between Jordan and Nike changed how popular athletes would be introduced to the world on a grand scale. That very union attracted many other offers for him and started a tidal wave of endorsement deals and sponsorships that has yet to show signs of subsiding.

Jordan has the looks, the talent, the accolades, the insatiable drive to dominate and an apparent apolitical stance that offended neither consumer nor business. He was the first black star athlete with undeniable crossover appeal. Even in a progressive era as the 1990s, this was unique and it was hard to imagine that the Association, or any league, could find similar success with another player.

They’re still searching for it.

When Jordan first retired following his third title with the Chicago Bulls, roundball columnists were asking who would become ‘The Next’. The roll call: Harold Miner, Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Jerry Stackhouse, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade and the highest anointed of them all, LeBron James. Not surprisingly, most of those players had or have reached just a fraction of Jordan’s popularity with the public and the corporate community (and ‘Baby Jordan’ Miner faded rather quickly). The expectations were unfair and unrealistic, but that hasn’t stopped the A from trying again with Wade and James. All the while, a different brand of superstar emerged that countered the ‘clean-cut’ campaign for Jordan.

For better or worse, stars with ‘hood appeal’, ‘street-cred’ and ‘ghetto superstardon’ written all over them became the focus on the league. Allen Iverson was the first anti-Jordan superstar (and this moment solidified that status), and he singlehandedly carried a fledgling Reebok into the 2000s. Any guard with a crossover and bravado seemingly followed suit (Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Baron Davis, ‘White Chocolate’ Jason Williams). The influx of hip-hop culture with these newer players may have opened new doors in the coded ‘urban’ centers, but it also invited a socioeconomic rift that turned away many casual fans. Race, economics, generations, you name it.

Because these two contrasting campaigns were openly competing for the public’s conscious, every little negative tidbit regarding a player or the games themselves became a referendum on the NBA.

It still does.

You can dissect any news related to the NBA and find that no matter how insightful the discussion can be about the game, its players or teams; the conversation always comes back to the league’s image. A low-scoring game invites people to scream about the salaries of players. When someone takes thirty or so shots in a game, players are selfish and dumb (because Jordan himself never took more than ten shots in any game). When more international players are drafted, it’s becomes some conscious plot to undermine the African-American athlete. When Steve Nash wins two MVP awards, some columnists and fans take Commissioner David Stern to task for championing a white player in a league full of black ones. Can the A get a fair shake? Not when it is so open about its desires of finding another Mike.

The league changed on-court play with new ripples for offense in order to move away from the dominant defenses of the 80s and 90s. The marketing of their already-known and industry-leading community relations initiative (branded as NBA Cares) has been turned up since the Brawl a few years back. Wade and James are the most marketed players in the league; Wade’s championship with the Heat have catapulted him major pitchman status while James was placed in Jordan’s shadow when he was still in high school barely five years ago.

All the while, there are a sign of the anti-Jordan athlete, even within the Jordan brand, Jumpman. Carmelo Anthony, its signature player, may run with Iverson now, but he was categorized with him during his rookie season. Marbury went from And1 to his own inexpensive and successful ‘Starbury’ line, even though his image has taken a turn for the worse in recent years. There were failed attempts to find more of those types, such as the adidas contract bestowed upon Marbury’s troubled cousin, Sebastian Telfair.

It’s apparent that the NBA wants to be admired in the way that few leagues are. The NFL, Major League Baseball and college sports (mainly basketball and football) don’t have these internal struggles out in the open as much as the NBA does. Other than baseball, the aforementioned leagues have a similar composition of players as the A; many black players grew up poor, working-class or middle-class. Baseball, itself, has an increased presence of Latino and Asian players and dwindling number of blacks and whites.

So, why do all the image problems really fall into the NBA’s lap? Because no matter if it’s Derek Jeter or Peyton Manning or even the true collegiate pitchmen, the coaches, those leagues never had what the NBA banked on for the better part of twenty years. They didn’t create nor fall upon what the Association had in the palm of its hand.

Jordan.

Basics

If there was one purpose to fufill on this blog outside of entertaining a different train of thought, it would be to better explain the games we watch, discuss and attend to anyone of all interest levels. From the seemingly disinterested to the irrationally obsessive, there is a general lack of fundamental understanding of how players perform and what to look for in their performances. Personally, it drives me up a wall. Professionally, it's a perfect opportunity.

Slowly, this blog (and future projects) will evolve not only as a source of commentary and humor about sports, but hopefully 'sports for not-so-keen-folk' (I think "For Dummies" has been used). Below is an list of links that will direct you to websites that explain the purpose of each sport. Even us scribes can relearn a thing or two such as what exactly a team rebound is or the point of icing. And as for fantasy sports: if you learn the real game, you can learn fantasy, no matter what guides and 'gurus' tell you.

This list will also appear on the right as 'Basics' becomes archived. Yes, you could Google or find the Wiki of each sport, but why would you need to if you can find it in one place?

Basketball:

• Wiki
• The NBA created Hoopedia, a great one-stop source to discover the league's history. For Rules, scroll down to Basketball 101.
• When it's time for that office pool, know why people get blue in the face in exhausting excitement or red in the face in unfiltered anger about the selection process. Welcome to the NCAA.

Baseball:

• Wiki
• Major League Baseball goes back to the Roman Empire... well, considering its deep-rooted, storied and controversial history, it might as well have been played by Julius Caesar himself.
• Unlike basketball and football - and even hockey in some places - college baseball does not have the national or regional attention that it should, but major talents still come from these ranks.
• Unlike basketball and football, the minor leagues are a big deal in many places across the US of A. Major League Baseball teams own a majority of these teams or have an affiliation with them, but there are some independents.

(American) Football:

• This tends to be the sport that confuses the most people that aren't fans. Digest sloooooooooooooooowly.
• Wiki
• NFL history and rulebook
• NCAA football, another source of hair-pulling and name-calling
• Arena Football: think basketball with shoulder pads and a hockey wall
• Pro Football Reference

Hockey:

• Wiki
• NHL history and rulebook
• NCAA
• American Hockey League: the highest-rated of the minors

Soccer/Football/Futbol:

• Wiki
• BBC Sport's 'Rules and Enforcement': immensely helpful while watching the 2006 World Cup
• BBC also features video on specific skills
• English Premier League: considered the top-flight league in Europe and the world

Tennis:

• Wiki
• Association of Tennis Professionals: Men's tour
• Women's Tennis Association: Women's tour
  

Antagonist

When the Knicks last ran New York City, the world wasn't sure what to think. It was the early nineties when the Yankees were trying to shed those Bronx Zoo days and the Mets were far from contenders. The Giants were pushing for another Super Bowl title one year and clawing away from the cellar the next while their roommates, the Jets, already set up their TVs there for some playoff watching. The Rangers broke the Curse of 54 years, but as the rest of the NHL, were losing their goodwill because of the lockout in 1995, they became a high-priced mess. There were no Arena Football, WNBA or MLS teams to ignore and Derek Jeter hadn't become entombed into the shortstop dirt in the Bronx.

1994 was as New York as New York could get when it came to sports. Sure, the city loves a winner, no matter the sport. Yet, the Knicks style of play was as emblematic of the Five Boroughs as anyone could care to admit. It was defensive. It was gritty. It was knock-you-on-your... It was just plain ugly. And it was beautiful. Streetball at its finest. 'Gimme lane' was the cry of the playground dynamo as everyone would clear to one side. That braggadocious fellow was met by a hard foul in the paint. As the city was during those days, there was little flash and even less love for anyone who showed that flair. The Knicks were the proverbial hard foul to the sporting public.

And the country hated it. They hated (and still hate) the Knicks because they represented the city truer than any other team, movie or TV show ever could. They hated the hole Michael Jordan left as he was the deft high-flyer and offensive force that tried to outsmart and outmanuever bigger and stronger opponents that played with the rules as those Knicks did. It was the same style of play that the Bad Boys played in Detroit and that the Celtics ruled with when needed during their last title reigns. Yet, the Knicks were blamed for the apparent demise of the NBA. In other words, they were the last true on-court antagonists the league ever had.

As the furor grows over the suspensions of Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw for leaving the bench after Robert Horry's forecheck of Steve Nash, debates rage over if the NBA has done right by its players and its true fans who desire competitive games over tailor-made outcomes. While it was an indefensible foul by Horry, it speaks to the intensity of the playoffs and the 'anything to win' mentality of these men in these spring months. The fouling that has taken place during the playoffs are a result of something greater within the game than fear of a fight. The playoffs are another world as every strength and weakness of not only teams and individual players is magnified, but a style of play and a league. While another post is needed for the true history of the bench rule, which extends to the aftermath of the Kermit Washington-Rudy Tomjanovich incident back in 1977, the glaring weakness that some fans and media are starting to see because of this incident is the loss of defense in the game. The campaign to increase the offense in the game has finally set in at the cost of competition.

The reasoning behind limiting the defense was to give the fans a show. Thinking that combined scores in the 250-point range every night would bring a cavalcade of fans to the arenas, the league felt that they needed to open up the court for the offense with clear path fouls, insitituting zone defense, allowing the pro-hop (you know that's travelling) and calling defensive three-seconds violations. Earlier this year, the league began to call more technicals as they believed it was to limit the whining of players about certain calls, but it was a clever way to add an extra point or two in a game. In addition to the 'Shaq zone' in the paint and handchecking fouls that were in place in the late-nineties, the NBA was an offensive game in the making. The rules have encouraged players to attack the basket at will or contort themselves to draw fouls as defenders are basically handcuffed. The rules in turn have also increased flopping on both sides. On offense, the current king of the flail, Manu Ginobili, makes Reggie Miller seem hard. For defense, it is the only way that they can force turnovers without the referees questioning the use of their hands on the open floor or their bodies in the post. The rules have taken away the balance between scoring and defending.

Other than baseball, team sports have handcuffed defensive specialists while enhancing what Walt Frazier would call 'swiss cheese' or 'matador D'. The NHL wanted to move away from the sluggish traps of the Jacques Lemaire-led Devils. So when the opportunity came after the season-long lockout in 2004-05, league officials tweaked the rules and the ice lines themselves to open up the game and there are still thoughts to have a bigger net behind a goalie with much more streamlined equipment. Older American fans found another reason to scoff at soccer as the overacting and blatant flops from the '06 World Cup marred the experience in their eyes (countered by the toughness of the overmatched US contingent). The NFL has been criticized for their defense against defense: roughing the quarterback, pass interference and the enforcement of the age-old five yard rule against cornerbacks.

Anyone who has played basketball at least once in their lives know how physical of a game it is. Anyone who has ever played against a talented offensive player knows that you have to make him or her earn points. Anyone who ever followed a team for a stretch of games has screamed "STOP HIM!" at least once during a game when teams answer point for point. Essentially, we love sports because there are two conflicting sides on a field or court or ice. One side reacts to the other as opposed to an elaborate shootaround. Defense reacts to offense. The antagonist reacts to the protagonist. The greatest moments in sports occur when one side succeeds in the back-and-forth conflict. How much greater is the feeling after winning when you know that both sides put their work in? After a while, no matter how fun it is to score at will, you still have to stop somebody. How much better is the passion play when fans can't stand the other team for playing their guys so well? For players and fans alike, defense not only wins championships, it defines sports. It's time to bring it back.