NBA: Is Pushing Stars Over Teams Right?

[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?

 

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

 

Then I apologize. I thought that there was some good discussion going on and I wanted to break it out of the NBA thread. I don't think anyone will think less of you because your name is attached to the first post in the thread. In the future I'll add a post at the start to indicate its a split topic.

 

To sort of take this thread in another direction, which method of promotions do you like the best among the major sports?

 

NFL tends to push the product

MLB pushes teams

NBA pushes stars

 

The NFL's system is probably the most effective because it is less affected by gaps in stardom or interesting teams. However, they are unique in the sense that they have a short season and can hype the event (Sunday football) whereas the others are dependent on getting you to tune in daily.

[Guest Czech please!]

Damaramu's ideal sports landscape is an SNES game that didn't get licensing from the players' union.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Damaramu's ideal sports landscape is an SNES game that didn't get licensing from the players' union.

 

That's really funny.

 

I'm reasonably sure that Dama's opinion is a by-product of growing up in sports no-man's land, where kids are born and raised to worship at the altar of Oklahoma football. The names and people are interchangeable... it's Boomer Sooner that transcends. Of course, collegiate worship is a completely foreign concept to me, which sheds some light on my confusion on Dama's hatred of covering sports as entertainment.

 

[HarleyQuinn 0]

In terms of methods I like best... it's MLB where almost any fan can instantly recognize a team by its logo on the front of their jersey and hockey is very similar in that it's often team over player (partly to the detriment of marketing).

 

Even within that though, there are still players that "transcend" the team: Derek Jeter, A-Rod, McGwire, Sosa (in the late 90's), Griffey Jr (arguably from 1992-1998), Barry Bonds. This happens more with hitters but pitchers like a Randy Johnson, Clemens, Maddux, or Pedro can also transcend the team and get into the public conscience for a brief amount of time.

 

For me, it's the perfect balance because you're drawn in by the team and still have star players who are more global successes than just products of the team that they're on (i.e. a guy like Chuck Knoblauch being famous just because he's a Yankee as opposed to a Jeter).

[Guest Vitamin X]

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.

 

But instead you want people to recognize that you derailed a thread completely off-topic when it was something that certainly warranted one? You are "rabble rousing", whether it's in its own thread or not.

[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.

 

But instead you want people to recognize that you derailed a thread completely off-topic when it was something that certainly warranted one? You are "rabble rousing", whether it's in its own thread or not.

 

I was talking about NBA players in an NBA thread. I hardly see that as derailing. If people wanted to debate me over it then that's where the derailing comes in. It was really just a comment on my part that wasn't meant to explode into a long debate.

[CanadianChris 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.

 

But instead you want people to recognize that you derailed a thread completely off-topic when it was something that certainly warranted one? You are "rabble rousing", whether it's in its own thread or not.

 

I was talking about NBA players in an NBA thread. I hardly see that as derailing. If people wanted to debate me over it then that's where the derailing comes in. It was really just a comment on my part that wasn't meant to explode into a long debate.

Not to derail THIS thread, but your original comment was on the media, not the players. In fact, my first thought on seeing your post was, "Wait, did I click on the Sports Announcing and Media thread by mistake?" Don't blame others for taking what you wrote to its logical conclusion.

[Guest Czech please!]

Damaramu: how did you feel about the 2004-2007 Chicago Bulls? This was a team where, under the red-assed leadership of Scott Skiles, a bunch of non-star players went balls-out from wire to wire, and they won a few more than they lost. No one player really excelled, no player could ever just flip the switch and say "okay, I'm taking this thing over," and no player could ever really be marketed as a synecdoche for the team. I think they tried with Gordon but he was a 6th man for a while there, maybe Deng briefly; if anything it was Kobe or Shaq or Dirk or Wade or LeBron against "Scott Skiles's Baby Bulls" or something retarded. I'll admit: I had a hell of a time watching that 2005 team, because

1) I had more Bulls games on TV than I did in previous years

2) That was the best season since '98

3) That was, after all, The Year Hockey Wasn't, and

4) Yes, I got really wrapped up in the whole "we're different, we're a team!" thing, and the novelty of that did, at that time, in concert with everything else, excite me. Yeah. Against all odds, this team of good selfless kids was winning 40some games after six years where there was absolutely no reason to give a damn about Bulls basketball. As we all know, the chinks in the armor started developing, well, as soon as the Bulls made it into the playoffs and faced the Wizards. Suddenly, it became evident that

A) Oh shit! Nobody on this team can score inside!

B) Oh, shit! No guy is stepping up to take over the game!

C) OH SHIT. THERE ISN'T ANYBODY GREAT ON THIS TEAM.

 

And that's when we as a fanbase realized we'd been duped into watching professional college basketball, and that this high-effort team-first model is inherently flawed for this league and forever doomed to failure. Then things really got salty when Ben Wallace came into town and said "man, I don't feel like this shit" and suddenly the teamwork and red-lining effort that it took to compete--not to dominate, just to be competitive--had been exhausted, and suddenly Skiles was shitcanned, Adrian Griffin was suspending Joakim Noah, and to this day the whole team is not much more than a quivering mass of incompetence, miscommunication, and hurt feelings. I got to watch star-packed basketball and star-eschewing basketball. Give me stars. That's what the NBA is. Don't fight it, don't even tolerate it. Embrace it.

[UZI Suicide 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!"

 

This is all ridiculous hyperbole. Not one single media member has ever actually said any of this. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Precious Roy 0]

There's a lot of things wrong with how the NBA markets itself and that probably won't change until Stern and his disciples are out of power. You would think the owners as a collective entity would be at least somewhat unhappy with the guy given the way the league has managed to fuck themselves out of high ratings on network TV and really failed to capitalize on the potential of the league considering how popular the sport of basketball is. The NBA underperforms relative to the NFL and MLB, and it's pretty inexplicable.

[Golgo 13 0]

I don't know. For all his faults, under Stern's reign, he brought a lot of international attention and business to the NBA and basketball as a result, making up for what he's done otherwise.

 

Dama would be helped so much by ignoring ESPN, etc., for a week or two at a time and sticking to the internet for coverage. A lot of his problems with sport seems to stem from overexposure to the WWL and their ilk.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

Dama bitches about the funniest things.

[Precious Roy 0]

Stern hasn't been all bad, I didn't really mean to insinuate that, but I think some of his accomplishments are way overrated and he seems to get a free pass a lot of the time based on that, not so much from fans but from a lot of the writers who cover the NBA. There was a time when he was on the cutting edge and very innovative in a lot of ways, but his best days are well behind him and the sport has suffered due to his pursuit of the $ over what's best for the game and the fans.

 

And ya know, international success is all well and good, but the games are played in the USA in American cities, that's the core of fanbase and the business and that's what's most important.

[Damaramu 0]

I don't know. For all his faults, under Stern's reign, he brought a lot of international attention and business to the NBA and basketball as a result, making up for what he's done otherwise.

 

There has been a seemingly large influx of foreign players. But, that's to be expected with the sport becoming popular around the country.

 

You know, the NBA really does underperform. I meet a ton of basketball fans that say stuff like "Yeah I love basketball, but I hate the NBA." That has really changed lately with the Thunder coming to town, so maybe it was the lack of a team to get behind?

[alfdogg 0]

Despite my attitude towards LeBron this season, I will say that he deserves most of the hype he receives. But, I don't agree with the people who say he's the best player in the world. Those same people was saying just last year it was Kobe; what has LeBron done since then to leapfrog him?

[MillenniumMan831 0]

I, as a Cleveland homer, have Kobe over LeBron.

[Guest Czech please!]

I meet a ton of basketball fans that say stuff like "Yeah I love basketball, but I hate the NBA."

Then they're goobers.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I meet a ton of basketball fans that say stuff like "Yeah I love basketball, but I hate the NBA."

 

These people are usually racists.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

Who goes out of their way to profess their love for basketball but let one know that they hate the NBA?

 

I can't imagine telling someone in the real world that I love pro wrestling but hate WWE.

[Guest Czech please!]

Picturing a black guy saying "I just prefer the atmosphere and the effort" is like picturing San Diego in a snowstorm.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Have you ever actually like flipped back and forth between a NCAA game and an NBA game? The contrast is astounding. I honestly can't even begin to fathom preferring the college game.

[naiwf 0]

The only good thing about NCAA hoops is the opening weekend of the tourney. You're all but guaranteed a couple of great games when there are 48 played in 4 days.

[Guest Czech please!]

Who goes out of their way to profess their love for basketball but let one know that they hate the NBA?

A Venn diagram of people who don't live in or near NBA towns and old white guys. There's this fallacy that players try harder in the NCAA and play a form of basketball that is truer to some idea of what basketball ought to be whereas the NBA has at some point lost its way. Also, something about "the atmosphere" being better. They'll intellectualize it in a number of ways, but what it always comes down to is that the NBA is a "thug league." Well, yes and no: the nature of professional athletics dictates that you're going to have a large number of people among your ranks who are complete fuckups in every non-sporting aspect of life, and they're scattered all around the big four leagues and beyond to varying extents. Of course, there are variables involved (the socioeconomic status of your average NBA player compared to your average NHLer who is probably going to grow up in a better household simply because of the cost-prohibitiveness of participating in youth hockey vis-a-vis youth basketball), but mainly it's the downside of the NBA's individualism: the highs are higher and the lows are lower. The NFL seems to be better at marginalizing its players' transgressions, because they're all basically expendable chattel. The NBA has really bad guys, it has really good guys, it has guys who just want to smoke pot and play X-Box and stay out of their own way. Anyway I'm drifting here but my point is that it's a redneck thing.

[Damaramu 0]

I don't even know why I say anything anymore. It's automatically dissected as wrong anyway. Sorry for wasting everyone's time by making a comment in another thread and getting everyone going. Sheesh.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

 

Just watch from 7:00-7:15. Dama should appreciate this.

[bob_barron 0]

Dama's custom title is idiotic, pure and simple.

 

Dama's been complaining about this for years and it's why I wasn't sad to see him banned. He constsantly whines about ESPN and the media blah blah, but he seems to watch it more than anyone else.

 

Stars Are What Market the League. No one gets attached to a team, unless they live in that area.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

but what it always comes down to is that the NBA is a "thug league." Well, yes and no: the nature of professional athletics dictates that you're going to have a large number of people among your ranks who are complete fuckups in every non-sporting aspect of life, and they're scattered all around the big four leagues and beyond to varying extents.

 

My favorite part about this is that I'm pretty sure that the NBA has a lower arrest rate than the NFL and maybe MLB. Ever since they broke up the Jailblazers and the JO/Artest/SJax Pacers the whole league has really been on its best behavior. I mean, look at this current generation of players: guys like Durant and Roy and Oden and Paul and Howard are veritable choirboys. The handful of guys who could really truly be classified as "thugs" (JR Rider, Qyntel Woods, Ruben Patterson, etc) are all out of the league and have been for a while.

[bob_barron 0]

When does a baseball player get arrested? Aside from Urbina

[Guest]

Tony LaRussa (not very many guys in charge manage that feat), Scott Spiezio, Brandon Backe, Luis Vizcaino, Juan Uribe, Joba Chamberlain...shall I continue?

[alfdogg 0]

I don't think it's fair to lump O'Neal in with Artest and Jackson. The only thing he's had against him is the Palace incident; he's never been known as a headcase or had any off-court troubles.