Reggie Miller
11-01-2005, 03:39 AM
I guess what follows was more or less inspired by the recent dress code controversy. Actually, I have been thinking about some of the NBA's problems for a few years now, so look out.
The old saying is that you fire the coach becuase the CBA prevents you from firing all of the players.
There is little or no communication or respect between the majority of players and the majority of ownership/management in the NBA. This is even evident when we look at the two over-hyped coaches that are generating so much buzz this preseason.
Larry Brown is a cancer. He thrives on drama, creates conflict, and then he makes sure that he is the first rat off of the ship. I saw it up close in Indiana, and it sure looks like that's what happened in Detroit. Maybe Dumars and company banked on his reputation and pulled a fast one on the public this time. I kind of doubt it, though. You have to look at that as well as a GM or owner. When this coach leaves, what shape will the franchise be in and under what terms will this coach be leaving (contract, etc.)? In recent years, it doesn't look like very many teams are taking a long view, however. It is amazing to me that Brown has become an elite coach mostly on the strength of quitting before a player or executive gets him fired.
Apparently, Jackson is some kind of a flake (just a rumor, you understand). Whether you give all of the credit to the players or whatever, the man has 9 rings, which you would think counts for something with players. The media explanation has been "Phil's act wore thin with the Lakers" or some version of same. Doesn't that implicitly say "Phil Jackson is a flake who was damn lucky to have two of the best players of all time?"
I forget the stat that was being kicked around last season, but it has gotten to the point that the average lifespan of coach is something like one year. No doubt, coaches are keenly aware of this; it would have to affect your performance somehow. At any rate, there seems to be too few coaches and executives that command the respect of the players these days.
This really highlights the central problems of the league. That is, is the problem the players' attitudes or the fact that these people really don't deserve much respect? The NBA is being run very poorly, IMHO. In the face of criticism, the suits always throw the players under the bus, whether deserved or not. Either way, this is a pretty stupid idea, because you are denigrating your own product.
Most of the league's "image problems" were created by the owners and league officials. I don't think too many casual fans wrote in to David Stern with missives such as "Dear David, please have all of the owners who already waste their draft picks take it a step further and dilute the talent pool of both the NCAA and NBA by drafting kids straight out of high school that no one has ever heard of..." or "Dear Commisioner, I think 'NBA Inside Stuff' with would be a much richer experience if second-rate gangsta rap were blaring continually through the entire thirty minutes, including the commercials..."
Since the Palace Brawl, the owners and league come across as saying something like "Golly gee fans, we wish we could bring you some REAL basketball, instead of this playground crap, but our hands are tied..." At best this is hypocritical. The lunatics may be running the asylum now, but someone had to hand the keys over to them.
Maybe I am just a bitter old man who doesn't know the real meaning of Christmas (or whatever), but the real problem is that the NBA became a hype junkie. When I was a kid in the '70s, the NBA was very conservative and frankly, boring. The ABA was threatening to the league, because despite it's many faws, it was interesting. Ultimately, the NBA adopted the "don't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and co-opted the ABA's best teams. This worked short term, and the ABA had introduced the idea of selling the league.
At first, the hype machine worked fairly well, because there was some substance there. The NBA wasn't hooked yet, and Bird and Magic felt pretty good. No one was getting hurt, right? When Bird and Magic weren't strong enough any more, fate again intervened in the form of Jordan and the Bulls' two championship runs. It was a great time for the league. The NBA stayed high 24-7. They could dream up any outrageous hype they wanted; Jordan would deliver. However, like all addicts, the NBA had to hit bottom. Jordan was gone, and it wasn't fun any more. Now the hype is necessary just to keep going from day to day, and there isn't that much substance there.
The NBA has several built-in problems that need to be addressed. First, basketball is historically a "second sport." Remember, basketball only exists because Naismith wanted something to do when you couldn't go outside a play a "real" sport. Almost a century later, that's not the problem. The problem is that pro basketball didn't come into national prominence until the baseball and football seasons were more or less fixed. Basketball, as any tv viewer can tell you, is a pain. Networks won't run basketball against major football telecasts. In theory, basketball picks up when baseball ends, but in terms of ratings, it starts when football ends. This is a vicious cycle, because you can't win over new fans if there aren't enough nationally televised games. (I shouldn't complain; I try to follow the NHL.)
Another disadvantage of this system is that basketball doesn't have a designated time. There's so much baseball (162 games) that you can almost always find a game on with anything more than basic cable. It's "baseball on demand" without too much investment. You don't have to work to find a game. Football has grabbed all of the prime weekend time while it is in season (Friday night through Monday night). It's pretty easy to justify setting aside three hours a week for free network coverage to a wife or girlfriend (or husband/boyfriend).
Just looking at the Spurs national schedule, I will be checking out four networks in six different time slots in November/December alone. (There are two Wednesday games, but at different times.)
No one will ever be bold enough to do this, but the season and playoffs are too long and need to be cut to deliver the best quality competition. Only hard core fans follow the NBA in November anyway. The public perception is that the pros mail it in too many nights. Cut out the back-to-backs and there go the excuses, anyway.
This brings up another problem. NBA players no doubt face higher scrutiny than other athletes for many reasons. I have no doubt that race is a factor for some detractors of the league. Unfortunately, it's just one among many. Basketball players are exposed. They are often easily identified. (Hey, who's that seven footer that looks just like Shaq?) There are fewer NBA players than MLB, NFL, and NHL players, but the media policy is to give the sports more or less equal coverage for "off the field" stuff. Most serious sports fans can name the majority of players in the NBA, just because there are so few. When a player is mailing it in, there are only a total of nine other guys out there. People notice.
I don't know if some of the NBA's disadvantages can ever be "fixed." Football isn't likely to turn Monday night over to the NBA, for example. However, the league's band aid solutions are doomed, because the NBA has created a league that most people don't care about until the spring, if then. Collared shirts can't fix that.
The old saying is that you fire the coach becuase the CBA prevents you from firing all of the players.
There is little or no communication or respect between the majority of players and the majority of ownership/management in the NBA. This is even evident when we look at the two over-hyped coaches that are generating so much buzz this preseason.
Larry Brown is a cancer. He thrives on drama, creates conflict, and then he makes sure that he is the first rat off of the ship. I saw it up close in Indiana, and it sure looks like that's what happened in Detroit. Maybe Dumars and company banked on his reputation and pulled a fast one on the public this time. I kind of doubt it, though. You have to look at that as well as a GM or owner. When this coach leaves, what shape will the franchise be in and under what terms will this coach be leaving (contract, etc.)? In recent years, it doesn't look like very many teams are taking a long view, however. It is amazing to me that Brown has become an elite coach mostly on the strength of quitting before a player or executive gets him fired.
Apparently, Jackson is some kind of a flake (just a rumor, you understand). Whether you give all of the credit to the players or whatever, the man has 9 rings, which you would think counts for something with players. The media explanation has been "Phil's act wore thin with the Lakers" or some version of same. Doesn't that implicitly say "Phil Jackson is a flake who was damn lucky to have two of the best players of all time?"
I forget the stat that was being kicked around last season, but it has gotten to the point that the average lifespan of coach is something like one year. No doubt, coaches are keenly aware of this; it would have to affect your performance somehow. At any rate, there seems to be too few coaches and executives that command the respect of the players these days.
This really highlights the central problems of the league. That is, is the problem the players' attitudes or the fact that these people really don't deserve much respect? The NBA is being run very poorly, IMHO. In the face of criticism, the suits always throw the players under the bus, whether deserved or not. Either way, this is a pretty stupid idea, because you are denigrating your own product.
Most of the league's "image problems" were created by the owners and league officials. I don't think too many casual fans wrote in to David Stern with missives such as "Dear David, please have all of the owners who already waste their draft picks take it a step further and dilute the talent pool of both the NCAA and NBA by drafting kids straight out of high school that no one has ever heard of..." or "Dear Commisioner, I think 'NBA Inside Stuff' with would be a much richer experience if second-rate gangsta rap were blaring continually through the entire thirty minutes, including the commercials..."
Since the Palace Brawl, the owners and league come across as saying something like "Golly gee fans, we wish we could bring you some REAL basketball, instead of this playground crap, but our hands are tied..." At best this is hypocritical. The lunatics may be running the asylum now, but someone had to hand the keys over to them.
Maybe I am just a bitter old man who doesn't know the real meaning of Christmas (or whatever), but the real problem is that the NBA became a hype junkie. When I was a kid in the '70s, the NBA was very conservative and frankly, boring. The ABA was threatening to the league, because despite it's many faws, it was interesting. Ultimately, the NBA adopted the "don't beat 'em, join 'em" approach and co-opted the ABA's best teams. This worked short term, and the ABA had introduced the idea of selling the league.
At first, the hype machine worked fairly well, because there was some substance there. The NBA wasn't hooked yet, and Bird and Magic felt pretty good. No one was getting hurt, right? When Bird and Magic weren't strong enough any more, fate again intervened in the form of Jordan and the Bulls' two championship runs. It was a great time for the league. The NBA stayed high 24-7. They could dream up any outrageous hype they wanted; Jordan would deliver. However, like all addicts, the NBA had to hit bottom. Jordan was gone, and it wasn't fun any more. Now the hype is necessary just to keep going from day to day, and there isn't that much substance there.
The NBA has several built-in problems that need to be addressed. First, basketball is historically a "second sport." Remember, basketball only exists because Naismith wanted something to do when you couldn't go outside a play a "real" sport. Almost a century later, that's not the problem. The problem is that pro basketball didn't come into national prominence until the baseball and football seasons were more or less fixed. Basketball, as any tv viewer can tell you, is a pain. Networks won't run basketball against major football telecasts. In theory, basketball picks up when baseball ends, but in terms of ratings, it starts when football ends. This is a vicious cycle, because you can't win over new fans if there aren't enough nationally televised games. (I shouldn't complain; I try to follow the NHL.)
Another disadvantage of this system is that basketball doesn't have a designated time. There's so much baseball (162 games) that you can almost always find a game on with anything more than basic cable. It's "baseball on demand" without too much investment. You don't have to work to find a game. Football has grabbed all of the prime weekend time while it is in season (Friday night through Monday night). It's pretty easy to justify setting aside three hours a week for free network coverage to a wife or girlfriend (or husband/boyfriend).
Just looking at the Spurs national schedule, I will be checking out four networks in six different time slots in November/December alone. (There are two Wednesday games, but at different times.)
No one will ever be bold enough to do this, but the season and playoffs are too long and need to be cut to deliver the best quality competition. Only hard core fans follow the NBA in November anyway. The public perception is that the pros mail it in too many nights. Cut out the back-to-backs and there go the excuses, anyway.
This brings up another problem. NBA players no doubt face higher scrutiny than other athletes for many reasons. I have no doubt that race is a factor for some detractors of the league. Unfortunately, it's just one among many. Basketball players are exposed. They are often easily identified. (Hey, who's that seven footer that looks just like Shaq?) There are fewer NBA players than MLB, NFL, and NHL players, but the media policy is to give the sports more or less equal coverage for "off the field" stuff. Most serious sports fans can name the majority of players in the NBA, just because there are so few. When a player is mailing it in, there are only a total of nine other guys out there. People notice.
I don't know if some of the NBA's disadvantages can ever be "fixed." Football isn't likely to turn Monday night over to the NBA, for example. However, the league's band aid solutions are doomed, because the NBA has created a league that most people don't care about until the spring, if then. Collared shirts can't fix that.