OT: NBA = fail
After reading the recent stuff about Dwight Howard lobbying for a trade, and Chris Paul demanding to go to the Knicks, Lakers or Clippers, I have to credit the NBA for its new deal and how it makes professional basketball even less interesting.
For the next deal, they should simply eliminate all but six teams, since it seems no one wants to play for any teams other than Miami, the L.A.s, New York New Jersey and Boston.
[ED:BISB: Much like the Tebow discussion, this one has gotten out of hand. No OT anyway, but this one devolved into a race-baiting MLive discussion in record time.
In the words of Erik_in_Dayton, this is why we can't have nice things.]
December 12th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
Chicago belongs on the OP's list of desirable spots for stars, and San Antonio is a freak occurrence (with a mega-star who doesn't seem interested in being a celebrity). It's very rare that teams lacking at least one superstar win NBA titles. That's part of what made the 2004 Pistons run so fun.
<br>I think the OP is right about this.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^
First of all, I would consider Chicago a big market, marquee location, Dallas is close as well. San Antonio and Detroit are good examples, but that's 5 of the last 20 championships. The Spurs have been everyone's example of how a small market team can succeed, but that's really the only good one.
The Knicks finally have good management (and some players to work around), the Nets have a new owner and are moving to Brooklyn and the Clippers' owner has finally decided he wants to spend money. If the rest of the teams in the league suck, it won't be good for anyone.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
you bring up three major market teams (Texas), one marquee basketball city (Chi-town), and another big market team (Detroit). Not exactly reeking of parity here. Not saying there isnt parity, but I think bringing up OKC, Portland, New Orleans and other smaller market teams that are putting together good teams are better examples.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^
I thought the reason for the lockout was so this sort of thing happened LESS, not more. Am I wrong here?
If not, way to make a stand, NBA.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
the real hardass part of the agreement kicks in after 2 years, basically the players wanted to ensure that these two guys and deron williams got as much as they could before things change vastly.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:58 PM ^
The NBA is a mess. I'd be surprised if they keep any kind of popularity over the next few years without some major changes.
December 12th, 2011 at 2:59 PM ^
in the US, I would call them a big market team.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:04 PM ^
I hated hearing how Howard was out talking to players who were more than willing to come play for Orlando but the guys in the office didn't do anything about it.. I don't know if thats normal or not, but i'd rather the players just play the game that they are way overpaid to play and leave the buisness to the guys who know what there doing.. a bunch of overpaid babies..NHL can consume this time for me anyway
December 12th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^
Let me guess: you were disgusted by the Cincy-Xavier brawl, but you LOVE hockey fights
December 12th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
Fighting is a part of hockey, it has been for years. It helps police the game when certain players get out of hand, and for that reason I LOVE hockey fights.
Tell me where fighting is a part of basketball in College or the NBA? You seem grossly in over your head on some of your recent comments.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:31 PM ^
That is a ridiculous double standard and that's all I'm going to say.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^
It is not a double standard, it's a difference between the sports. You can tackle a guy in football, are you saying you should be able to do that in basketball?
December 12th, 2011 at 3:35 PM ^
the fact that you say that proves you have no idea how hockey is played.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:16 PM ^
December 12th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^
Does anyone remember MTV's Rock n' Jock basketball games they would do every so often? Re: the above post about raising the rims, it got me thinking how that would be an entertaining league I would watch. 50 pt. baskets 30 ft. in the air, 25 pt. baskets 20 ft. Not to trash the NBA, to each their own, but it's the quality of the game now that has lost my support (I hate saying that, it is cliche, but to me it holds true). It has become a parody of what it was (so why not add 25 pt. buckets for Lebron and the like to score at will on).
December 12th, 2011 at 3:25 PM ^
Its to the point where I actually wonder what type of person actually likes this crap.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:59 PM ^
At least with Vince McMahon, it is acknowledged with a wink and smile that it's scripted "entertainment" and not a competition. Something that puppet master Stern claims his sport still is.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:28 PM ^
The style of play is just so lame to me. Iso breakdown. Iso breakdown. Iso breakdown.
I also don't really like how the game itself is so driven by the officiating. The outcome of every single game is definitely completely in the refs hands. Most sports are at least somewhat driven by officiating, but basketball is just at a whole other level.
I like college ball I just really hate the NBA because it is everything bad about the game and very little strategy. Mike Brown made it deep into the playoffs as a head coach. MIKE BROWN. Also, Doc was damn near fired because of how terrible of a coach he is until the Big Two joined Paul in Boston. Doc is an awful coach.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
Watching a star player do the same thing over and over again - however brilliant he may be at it - just gets old fast - especially when, as you allude to, he's being helped by the refs at every turn.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
Coaching in the NBA isn't as much about coaching as it is managing player personalities and substitutions. Some much of the game while in play is based off of 1 on 1 and 2 on 2 ball that the importance of strategy is decreased compared to the college game.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:41 PM ^
There are lots of problems with the NBA, and this is one of them. The main problem I have with pro sports themselves (leaving behind the money agruments, etc) as compared to college sports is the style of play. This is much more obvious going from pro basketball to college basketball, but the main idea is that the players are in a sense too good.
What this means is that they have taken a lot of the plays out of the game. NBA is essentially a 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 game. Lots of pick and roll/pop, lots of isolation, not enough feed the post and cut off of it, but those three basic plays sum up the NBA. This is because they don't need to run a motion offense. They don't need backdoor cuts and plays that set up for things. In my opinion, that makes the game more boring to watch. The players' abilities have become so good that they have degraded some of the better parts of the game in my opinion. Combine that with all the ticky tack fouls (players get hacked a ton, but it needs to be more like holding in football, it happens all the time but let it go a bit more), continuation (my least favorite rule), etc.
It's the same to a degree in the NFL. You don't see anyone running GTech's offense. Let alone the vast variaties of other offenses and defenses. The players are too good. In my mind it makes the game less exciting and hurts my enjoyment of it to a great degree. In my opinion, the college game has the perfect mixture of really good players but not to the point of tipping the scale, making it better than a bunch of pimple faced 17 year olds miss layups and that one kid that's going D1 dominating them.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^
there's really a great lack of schematic diversity in the pro ranks. the bronco's shotgun offense has the league going nuts, but its the same thing that coaches run at the college level all the time.
that's the thing abt college. because the talent pool is so diluted compared to the pros, talent-poor teams will often employ exotic schemes to try and confuse and outmaneuver opponents. pro teams have enough talent, and opponents have enough talent that often times, the exotic schemes dont survive.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^
Amen. Pro football to me is like watching two assembly-line robots compete to build a car the fastest. At the risk of starting a Tebow discussion, I'm glad for him just because he's the one guy who's different (I should add a nod to Mike Vick here). I don't care if he's "really" good or not. At least he's unique.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
David Stern and the ridiculous vetoing of the Paul trade hurts the league's credibility no doubt. Now, I'm not that familiar with how player movement goes in the NHL, but it's really no different than baseball. When guys are in the last year of their deal, franchises see if they can lock them up. and if not they trade them away to someone who can so they can get something in return.
Chris Paul's options:
1. stay in New Orleans with no running mate for more money but with little chance of winning
2. stay the rest of the year and then leave in free agency, screwing New Orleans who'd get nothing in return
3. seek a fair deal for New Orleans that would get him somewhere he would like to stay and have a chance to win
This is how it is set up right now. After seeing what New Orleans could get in the Lakers and Clippers deals, it is idiotic to not think option 3 is the best for Chris, New Orleans, and the league. Problem with a lot of teams is how they are managed, nothing else. Good deals for stars often lead to successful rebuilding. Memphis and Denver's success last year are examples of this.
If you don't like the NBA, you don't have to like it, but enough of the ignorant bashing about big markets and players.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^
this is indeed a case of david stern going power-trip on the league. however, i believe that stern is trying to set a precedent with this situation, in that he's pretty much refusing to allow superstars to dictate where they end up. the league took a lot of bad pr over how lebron and melo handled their situations. david stern is trying to prevent that from happening again. and he's causing an even bigger ruckus in the process.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:53 PM ^
Stern is the joke, guy sucks at life. I cant NOT watch the NBA though, the talent level is just ridiculous. Though you have a great point in saying that the NBA is doing their best to get us to care less
December 12th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^
For people like you who really love watching the NBA, it would have to get really bad to lose you as a fan. But for most of us who are casual fans or who don't cheer for a team like the Lakers who are always contenders, things are getting bad. I'll likely watch very little NBA basketball this year, and I certainly won't attend a game. And I'm a huge sports fan, so this is bad for the league.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:55 PM ^
I wonder how long til we see a poster take a vacation to Bolivia in this thread
December 12th, 2011 at 4:02 PM ^
There's a lot to dislike about the NBA, but the league brass won't feel the urgent need to change until ratings are way down and butts aren't in the seats in April, May and June. Those numbers the last few years would seem to indicate there are a lot of people who trash the NBA (which is quite fashinable these days) and say they are done with it that are tuning in when it matters most.