NBA: Is Pushing Stars Over Teams Right?

[Damaramu 0]

Did you guys know that the Heat vs. Cavs game was apparently called off? Yeah I just learned that Lebron James and Dwayne Wade just played a one on one game. At least that's what all the "Lebron beats Wade" headlines lead me to believe. I mean if the teams played wouldn't they say "Cavs beat Heat?"

[MillenniumMan831 0]

Because Wade is a big star. LeBron is a big star. Wade is a bigger name than Heat. LeBron is a bigger name than Cavaliers. Both had excellent games last night so there ya go.

[Damaramu 0]

I would never put a star player ahead of the team. It's a team. The final score of the game was not 42-41. The other people in the game did something ya know.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

It's more eye-catching to see LeBron beats Wade than Cavs beat Heat.

 

Just the way it goes.

[Damaramu 0]

Besides, it wasn't just Lebron that beat the Heat in the 4th quarter. Mo Williams did a lot there too. But Mo Williams isn't a huge star, so he doesn't get shoved down our throats.

 

I'm going to have to disconnect my TV and internet all summer after the Lakers and Cavs play in the finals. They'll still be talking about "The Greatest Most Star Packed Finals EVAH~!" well into December.

[Guest Czech please!]

Damaramu, did you spend the 1990s in a cocoon?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Dama's insolence towards all things mass media is one of the most puzzling running subplots in the Sports folder. He appears to be legit offended every time he turns on the television, radio or computer and reads a sports news stories. You do realize that ESPN/Yahoo/etc. are in the business of selling sports news, not reporting it, right?

 

I also find a degree of irony in being put off by a potential Lakers/Cavs NBA Finals, seeing as how last year's Celtics/Lakers match-up was probably the most hyped in my lifetime.

[Steviekick 0]

I was thinking the same thing. All they talked about how great a Lakers/Celtics Finals would be, starting before the playoffs even began.

[Damaramu 0]

I was thinking the same thing. All they talked about how great a Lakers/Celtics Finals would be, starting before the playoffs even began.

 

At least they talked about the teams and the history though. Not hyping up two individuals to nauseating levels.

[Steviekick 0]

I was thinking the same thing. All they talked about how great a Lakers/Celtics Finals would be, starting before the playoffs even began.

 

At least they talked about the teams and the history though. Not hyping up two individuals to nauseating levels.

 

All the talk about Kevin Garnett getting a chance to earn a ring was over the top. Especially the interview with Bill Russell telling him that he would give one of his rings to him if the Celtics lost and that he would still be proud.

[Damaramu 0]

I was thinking the same thing. All they talked about how great a Lakers/Celtics Finals would be, starting before the playoffs even began.

 

At least they talked about the teams and the history though. Not hyping up two individuals to nauseating levels.

 

All the talk about Kevin Garnett getting a chance to earn a ring was over the top. Especially the interview with Bill Russell telling him that he would give one of his rings to him if the Celtics lost and that he would still be proud.

 

 

It's still not the same as "Lebron! BRON BRON! He's better than Jordan! We are witness! Let's put him on the NBA logo!" or "Kobe! Kobe! Kobe is the greatest player in the NBA today! Kobe wins games by himself all the time!"

 

At least there were multiple storylines going into that game as opposed to what I posted above which is all we'd get from these finals.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The NBA has always been about selling stars and personality over the product. This is nothing new with Lebron or Kobe. Unlike the NFL, which sells the product, and MLB, which sells teams, the NBA is dependent on transcendent stars and personalities. It's the most personal of the major sports. The leanest years have always been when "teams" won out over players (see: San Antonio, New Jersey, Detroit). Your hate is really misguided.

 

 

 

[Damaramu 0]

The NBA has always been about selling stars and personality over the product. This is nothing new with Lebron or Kobe. Unlike the NFL, which sells the product, and MLB, which sells teams, the NBA is dependent on transcendent stars and personalities. It's the most personal of the major sports. The leanest years have always been when "teams" won out over players (see: San Antonio, New Jersey, Detroit). Your hate is really misguided.

 

 

Boy I sure did enjoy those lean years more than the recent years since Lebron has come into the league.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

When the fuck has anyone in the media said LeBron was better than Jordan?

[Guest Czech please!]

Kobe wins games by himself all the time!

But that's what really good players are expected to do in the NBA. If you don't like seeing transcendent basketball players take over games and singlehandedly win them, stick to the college game and just watch a bunch of guys miss their shots while some balding lunatic raves about what good kids they are.

 

Also, you claim your favorite years were the ones where superstar players didn't win championships, which were basically '03/'04/'05 (though the Pistons were hardly no-namers). If you're such a Celtics fan that you're telling the Lakers to suck it with every post you make, shouldn't it stand to reason that your favorite year would be the year that your favorite team won a championship, which they did with superstar players? Who you crappin'?

[Damaramu 0]

I did enjoy last year a lot, because the Celtics won and the Lakers lost.

 

However, in terms of media hype and actually being able to stomach watching anything NBA related with the TV not on mute would be post-Jordan and pre-Lebron years.

 

And I'm not blowing a gasket, just expressing my displeasure for constantly having Lebron and Kobe rammed in my face everytime the TV is on.

[CanadianChris 0]

However, in terms of media hype and actually being able to stomach watching anything NBA related with the TV not on mute would be post-Jordan and pre-Lebron years.

What, you mean the Shaq and Kobe show?

[Guest Vitamin X]

However, in terms of media hype and actually being able to stomach watching anything NBA related with the TV not on mute would be post-Jordan and pre-Lebron years.

This would be defined as the era with Spurs starring David Robinson and Tim Duncan and the Lakers starring Kobe & Shaq.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Every sport is built around stars and while people talk about the "greatest teams" ever, more people remember names like Jordan, Gretzky, Ruth, and Lombardi.

 

If I were NBA Commish, I'd be pushing the hell out of individual players too. Look at the NHL and the Ovechkin vs. Crosby debate... it's far more money making than Capitals vs. Penguins.

[Damaramu 0]

However, in terms of media hype and actually being able to stomach watching anything NBA related with the TV not on mute would be post-Jordan and pre-Lebron years.

What, you mean the Shaq and Kobe show?

 

Yeah you're right. There's not a good era of commentating and media hype relating to the NBA. It's too much of an individualistic sport for today's "I must find a select few and hype them to the moon" media.

[naiwf 0]

I don't know why Dama even tries anymore. He can't even put forth a compelling argument because he doesn't know what he's trying to say half of the time. The Shaq and Kobe era got more hype than anything in the NBA after Jordan. Their "feud" was the centerpiece of NBA Coverage for YEARS. The Lakers/Celtics series last year was the epitome of hype, but he liked those things. The NBA focuses on individuals because that's what sells tickets, merchandise and the game itself. The year D-Wade took the Heat to the title was like manna falling from heaven for Stern. A single guy can win you a championship, and if you market the hell out of the big names on all of the teams you'll more than likely end up with someone to hype in the Finals. Or you could get "unlucky" and get stuck with the San Antonio Spurs who have won almost half of the titles in the last decade.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

But that's how you sell the NBA, Dama. There are only ten guys on the court at a time and the cameras come in close enough that we see their faces, their expressions, and their personality. This isn't MLB where the teams are so ingrained with local culture that merely saying Red Sox evokes certain feelings; the NBA must sell the players. The 80s was Magic v. Bird, the 90s was MJ, and the 00s is Shaq and Kobe. That's the way it's always been and the way it always will be.

 

What, exactly, are you looking for in sports coverage? I hear a lot of complaining, but not a lot of solutions. Should they merely stand in front of the TV and report the box score, ignoring the actual star players in the process?

[Guest Czech please!]

I can't stand LeBron James and Kobe Bryant either, so ramming them in my face has done its job and made me care about the outcomes of their games. Like I said, if you don't want to watch amazing people do amazing things, just watch college basketball. There's plenty of teamwork and greater good, and it really gets exciting when the pep band plays "Smoke on the Water" after a game-tying midrange jumper! The sousaphonists pivot in time with the music; it's really great.

[Kinetic 0]

Or you could get "unlucky" and get stuck with the San Antonio Spurs who have won almost half of the titles in the last decade.

 

Right, and then you end up with the sort of ratings disasters that cause ESPN.com writers and loyal TSMers alike to wring their hands in disapproval.

 

My only real issue with the star system in the NBA is the routinely awful officiating, which goes on throughout the season but really only becomes the subject of serious debate during the playoffs. I can understand that they'd want guys like Kobe and LeBron as the focus of much of their marketing, but I wish they wouldn't allow that to influence the officiating, which in turn influences the outcomes of games.

[Damaramu 0]

What, exactly, are you looking for in sports coverage? I hear a lot of complaining, but not a lot of solutions. Should they merely stand in front of the TV and report the box score, ignoring the actual star players in the process?

 

You can hype the star players, just don't do it every chance you get when covering the league. Don't throw their accomplishments at me everytime you mention the NBA.

 

I prefer that the games be on and then the games reported on. You can report on the players, just don't act like 2 or 3 are the greatest thing ever and everyone else is just playing second fiddle to them in the league.

 

That's what a lot of the hype feels like to me. "Well anything Kobe and Lebron does is infinitely more important than anything the rest of these bums do."

 

Also stupid nicknames like "Bron Bron" really drive me over the edge when I'm already tired of hearing about how Lebron James is the best player ever, despite the fact the Cavs aren't playing on that night.

 

That's what I want. Not to have them shoved in my face anytime anything relating to the NBA is mentioned. The lead story for any NBA telecast or game night is whatever these two did. Even if someone else scores 50 and looks amazing it's "OMG~! Lebron lost and scored 23 points. Story at 11!"

[Damaramu 0]

Also for the record I didn't create this thread. I said something in the NBA thread, some people responded, I responded and then a mod (i assume cheech) took those posts and made this thread.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Also for the record I didn't create this thread. I said something in the NBA thread, some people responded, I responded and then a mod (i assume cheech) took those posts and made this thread.

 

For the record, that's exactly what happened. Why even bring it up? Do you have an issue with this?

[naiwf 0]

What, exactly, are you looking for in sports coverage? I hear a lot of complaining, but not a lot of solutions. Should they merely stand in front of the TV and report the box score, ignoring the actual star players in the process?

 

You can hype the star players, just don't do it every chance you get when covering the league. Don't throw their accomplishments at me everytime you mention the NBA.

 

I prefer that the games be on and then the games reported on. You can report on the players, just don't act like 2 or 3 are the greatest thing ever and everyone else is just playing second fiddle to them in the league.

 

That's what a lot of the hype feels like to me. "Well anything Kobe and Lebron does is infinitely more important than anything the rest of these bums do."

 

Also stupid nicknames like "Bron Bron" really drive me over the edge when I'm already tired of hearing about how Lebron James is the best player ever, despite the fact the Cavs aren't playing on that night.

 

That's what I want. Not to have them shoved in my face anytime anything relating to the NBA is mentioned. The lead story for any NBA telecast or game night is whatever these two did. Even if someone else scores 50 and looks amazing it's "OMG~! Lebron lost and scored 23 points. Story at 11!"

 

You probably shouldn't watch any professional sport then. The NFL hypes its stars at the expense of the other players and tends to pick teams for the national spotlight games based on the fact they can pull in viewers by using the big names. MLB is exactly the same. The NHL finally realized that trying to make the game more about guys like Crosby and Ovetchkin was better than trying to market teams that very few people care about. In the 24 hour sports cycle this is what's going to happen with every sport. Hell, they even do it at the college level with the deification of Tim Tebow, or the relentless sucking of Tyler Hansbrough's dick whenever those teams play even though they're on national powerhouses.

[Damaramu 0]

Also for the record I didn't create this thread. I said something in the NBA thread, some people responded, I responded and then a mod (i assume cheech) took those posts and made this thread.

 

For the record, that's exactly what happened. Why even bring it up? Do you have an issue with this?

 

I don't want people to think I created a thread to rabble-rouse.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

I don't think ESPN wants to have ratings comparable to Golden Girl reruns by glossing over highlights of the titanics of the league.

 

You think I dig constant Red Sox coverage over the MLB season? Hell no, but I know why it exists and I simply find something else to watch.

 

EDIT - Not to mention having to look at Paul Pierce's horseface being interviewed every chance ABC/ESPN gets hearing about what a feelgood story it is for him to have a championship. Yeah, the street goes both ways.