KoriEllis
09-07-2004, 03:57 PM
Who's next?
Breakup of Lakers means NBA needs a new public enemy
Posted: Tuesday September 7, 2004 12:40PM
sportsillustrated.cnn.com...w.villain/ (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/john_hollinger/09/07/new.villain/)
That giant gust you felt last week wasn't Hurricane Frances -- it was David Stern's sigh of relief after prosecutors dropped the charges against Kobe Bryant. However, the commish still has to deal with another issue facing Bryant's team, and it's a much more serious long-term problem for the NBA's popularity: the impending decline of the Laker empire.
Despite winning four of the past five championships in what is perhaps the most competitive conference in the history of basketball, the Laker dynasty is clearly a thing of the past. Bryant, of course, remains, but he has a hollowed-out shell of a team surrounding him. Sure, they'll have their moments. With Bryant, Lamar Odom and some interesting younger guys, the Lakers will end up on the good side of .500. But in the Western Conference, that might not be enough to get a playoff berth. As for a ticket back to the Finals, that looks like a total pipe dream.
That brings us to Stern's dilemma, because for the first time since Michael Jordan's first retirement in 1994-95, the league has no answer to a basic question: Who are we supposed to root against?
Unfortunately for the NBA, the breakup of the Lakers means one of the great Evil Empires in sports history has come to an end. The Lakers weren't actually evil, of course, but to fans of any other team -- especially in the West -- they sure seemed evil. It wasn't so much that they won, but how they won. They were cocky, they toyed with their opponents, and there was a nagging suspicion the refs would bail them out if it really came down to it.
The Lakers weren't just run-of-the-mill villains, either -- they were great at it. Some think that repeat champions naturally produce this kind of visceral, irrational hatred from other teams' fans, but that's not the case. The Spurs, for instance, have a recent track record that's nearly as impressive as the Lakers' -- they've won two titles in six years and have a good shot at making it three out of seven this season -- but even their fiercest rivals can't say anything bad about them.
The Lakers, on the other hand, gave people all kinds of reasons to despise them. Here's the abridged version:
The Bully
Front and center was the recently exiled Shaquille O'Neal, who made every game against the Lakers an instant David vs. Goliath match, and of course everybody loves to root against Goliath. Opposing fans insist one difference in this case was that Goliath got to commit 16 offensive fouls every game. But Shaq wasn't the only reason, or even the main reason the Lakers became so loathed by so many. After all, nobody hated the Orlando Magic when he played there. Let's dig deeper.
The Fans
Now we're getting somewhere. Seeing the Lakers fans made it easier to dislike the team, because of the sheer number of disinterested celebs strategically placed in the front row at every game. It gave the impression that L.A. fans treat the games like cocktail party appearances, competing to see who could show up the latest while periodically turning to ask their agents, "What inning is it?" The one Hollywood star who makes the most effort to be a true fan is Jack Nicholson, but it's hard to take his fandom seriously until he loses the sunglasses.
The Smugness
The fans and Shaq are the tip of the iceberg. Nobody minded that combo when the Lakers were being coached by Kurt Rambis and Del Harris. The Lakers didn't truly make the jump to Evil's inner sanctum until Phil Jackson arrived. Jackson made them champions, which always helps raise the ire of opponents and their fans, and took it a step further by adding a smug, condescending veneer to the proceedings. It was Jackson who would throw in subtle yet remarkably effective digs at the opposition in every playoff series. He was the one who would sit back like a professor during the games, looking only slightly more interested in the proceedings than Melanie Griffith. He backed it up, too, by winning nine championship rings, and that just made him more, shall we say, "confident" with each passing year.
There's a deeper level to the Jackson-era smug factor as well. After that first title, the Lakers put less effort into the regular season every year. It was almost as if they were taunting the poor Timberwolves and Kings of the world -- Go ahead, get a better record than us if it makes you feel better. We can be the No. 8 seed and still beat you when it matters. Pure villain stuff.
The role players
This is an important and underrated aspect. Lots of teams have one or two guys everybody hates, but the Lakers had one of the deepest villain benches in history. It all started with the first title team and Ron Harper, who was blissfully unaware that the team was winning in spite of him rather than because of him, and ballooned from there. Derek Fisher drove us to distraction by flopping at the slightest hint of contact. Robert Horry sleepwalked for the entire regular season and the first 47 minutes of every playoff game and somehow became a hero for it. And then there was Rick Fox. The chippy play was bad enough, but who was grooming this guy? He looked like he was just playing hoops to pass the time while he waited for Color Me Badd's reunion tour.
Kobe
To top it off, L.A. had Kobe, perhaps the most polarizing love-hate player of this generation -- only Allen Iverson comes close. Between mimicking Jordan's voice and mannerisms, the seeming need to take the most difficult shot possible and the cocky, aloof demeanor he projected, there was more than enough for Lakers-haters to choose from. At the same time, his dynamic, attacking style, propensity for taking -- and making -- the big shot and crazy finishing skills earned him as many fans as detractors.
Bryant was a microcosm of the team in that absolutely everyone had an opinion. And I don't just mean basketball fans.
When the Bryant's charges were announced, rare was the person who didn't espouse an opinion on his guilt or innocence -- before any information became public. Had a survey been taken at the time, it's conceivable the results would have broken neatly into two camps -- half saying "It's all a lie and he's innocent," the others saying, "He's guilty and I hope he ends up on laundry duty in prison."
For all of those reasons, the Lakers were Public Enemy No. 1 around the NBA for the past five years, and the NBA is going to miss that this season. That Lakers team is gone except for Bryant, and just having Kobe on a team that won't make it past April isn't going to be enough to carry the Lakers' stock as the leading villain much further. As a result, Stern loses the NBA's answer to the Cowboys of the late '70s or early '90s, or the Soviet hockey team, or the Christian Laettner-era Dukies, or the Yankees of 1920-2004.
The Lakers were what every pro league craves -- love them or hate them, their games mattered. For fans, there was absolutely no middle ground. That's what makes people tune in, which adds up to some serious cha-ching in the NBA's cash registers. If you don't believe me, check out the ratings for this century's one non-Lakers Finals (Anybody up for a Spurs vs. Nets repeat? I didn't think so). Stern knows all too well that this year's Finals aren't likely to fare much better. With scores down, ticket prices up and a lockout looming after the season, the timing couldn't be worse. For the league to relive it's heyday of the past decade, the NBA somehow has to find a new villain.
Breakup of Lakers means NBA needs a new public enemy
Posted: Tuesday September 7, 2004 12:40PM
sportsillustrated.cnn.com...w.villain/ (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/john_hollinger/09/07/new.villain/)
That giant gust you felt last week wasn't Hurricane Frances -- it was David Stern's sigh of relief after prosecutors dropped the charges against Kobe Bryant. However, the commish still has to deal with another issue facing Bryant's team, and it's a much more serious long-term problem for the NBA's popularity: the impending decline of the Laker empire.
Despite winning four of the past five championships in what is perhaps the most competitive conference in the history of basketball, the Laker dynasty is clearly a thing of the past. Bryant, of course, remains, but he has a hollowed-out shell of a team surrounding him. Sure, they'll have their moments. With Bryant, Lamar Odom and some interesting younger guys, the Lakers will end up on the good side of .500. But in the Western Conference, that might not be enough to get a playoff berth. As for a ticket back to the Finals, that looks like a total pipe dream.
That brings us to Stern's dilemma, because for the first time since Michael Jordan's first retirement in 1994-95, the league has no answer to a basic question: Who are we supposed to root against?
Unfortunately for the NBA, the breakup of the Lakers means one of the great Evil Empires in sports history has come to an end. The Lakers weren't actually evil, of course, but to fans of any other team -- especially in the West -- they sure seemed evil. It wasn't so much that they won, but how they won. They were cocky, they toyed with their opponents, and there was a nagging suspicion the refs would bail them out if it really came down to it.
The Lakers weren't just run-of-the-mill villains, either -- they were great at it. Some think that repeat champions naturally produce this kind of visceral, irrational hatred from other teams' fans, but that's not the case. The Spurs, for instance, have a recent track record that's nearly as impressive as the Lakers' -- they've won two titles in six years and have a good shot at making it three out of seven this season -- but even their fiercest rivals can't say anything bad about them.
The Lakers, on the other hand, gave people all kinds of reasons to despise them. Here's the abridged version:
The Bully
Front and center was the recently exiled Shaquille O'Neal, who made every game against the Lakers an instant David vs. Goliath match, and of course everybody loves to root against Goliath. Opposing fans insist one difference in this case was that Goliath got to commit 16 offensive fouls every game. But Shaq wasn't the only reason, or even the main reason the Lakers became so loathed by so many. After all, nobody hated the Orlando Magic when he played there. Let's dig deeper.
The Fans
Now we're getting somewhere. Seeing the Lakers fans made it easier to dislike the team, because of the sheer number of disinterested celebs strategically placed in the front row at every game. It gave the impression that L.A. fans treat the games like cocktail party appearances, competing to see who could show up the latest while periodically turning to ask their agents, "What inning is it?" The one Hollywood star who makes the most effort to be a true fan is Jack Nicholson, but it's hard to take his fandom seriously until he loses the sunglasses.
The Smugness
The fans and Shaq are the tip of the iceberg. Nobody minded that combo when the Lakers were being coached by Kurt Rambis and Del Harris. The Lakers didn't truly make the jump to Evil's inner sanctum until Phil Jackson arrived. Jackson made them champions, which always helps raise the ire of opponents and their fans, and took it a step further by adding a smug, condescending veneer to the proceedings. It was Jackson who would throw in subtle yet remarkably effective digs at the opposition in every playoff series. He was the one who would sit back like a professor during the games, looking only slightly more interested in the proceedings than Melanie Griffith. He backed it up, too, by winning nine championship rings, and that just made him more, shall we say, "confident" with each passing year.
There's a deeper level to the Jackson-era smug factor as well. After that first title, the Lakers put less effort into the regular season every year. It was almost as if they were taunting the poor Timberwolves and Kings of the world -- Go ahead, get a better record than us if it makes you feel better. We can be the No. 8 seed and still beat you when it matters. Pure villain stuff.
The role players
This is an important and underrated aspect. Lots of teams have one or two guys everybody hates, but the Lakers had one of the deepest villain benches in history. It all started with the first title team and Ron Harper, who was blissfully unaware that the team was winning in spite of him rather than because of him, and ballooned from there. Derek Fisher drove us to distraction by flopping at the slightest hint of contact. Robert Horry sleepwalked for the entire regular season and the first 47 minutes of every playoff game and somehow became a hero for it. And then there was Rick Fox. The chippy play was bad enough, but who was grooming this guy? He looked like he was just playing hoops to pass the time while he waited for Color Me Badd's reunion tour.
Kobe
To top it off, L.A. had Kobe, perhaps the most polarizing love-hate player of this generation -- only Allen Iverson comes close. Between mimicking Jordan's voice and mannerisms, the seeming need to take the most difficult shot possible and the cocky, aloof demeanor he projected, there was more than enough for Lakers-haters to choose from. At the same time, his dynamic, attacking style, propensity for taking -- and making -- the big shot and crazy finishing skills earned him as many fans as detractors.
Bryant was a microcosm of the team in that absolutely everyone had an opinion. And I don't just mean basketball fans.
When the Bryant's charges were announced, rare was the person who didn't espouse an opinion on his guilt or innocence -- before any information became public. Had a survey been taken at the time, it's conceivable the results would have broken neatly into two camps -- half saying "It's all a lie and he's innocent," the others saying, "He's guilty and I hope he ends up on laundry duty in prison."
For all of those reasons, the Lakers were Public Enemy No. 1 around the NBA for the past five years, and the NBA is going to miss that this season. That Lakers team is gone except for Bryant, and just having Kobe on a team that won't make it past April isn't going to be enough to carry the Lakers' stock as the leading villain much further. As a result, Stern loses the NBA's answer to the Cowboys of the late '70s or early '90s, or the Soviet hockey team, or the Christian Laettner-era Dukies, or the Yankees of 1920-2004.
The Lakers were what every pro league craves -- love them or hate them, their games mattered. For fans, there was absolutely no middle ground. That's what makes people tune in, which adds up to some serious cha-ching in the NBA's cash registers. If you don't believe me, check out the ratings for this century's one non-Lakers Finals (Anybody up for a Spurs vs. Nets repeat? I didn't think so). Stern knows all too well that this year's Finals aren't likely to fare much better. With scores down, ticket prices up and a lockout looming after the season, the timing couldn't be worse. For the league to relive it's heyday of the past decade, the NBA somehow has to find a new villain.