"They'll remember this as the game we held Curry scoreless instead of the day we lost by 30."
It seemed like a moronic statement at the time, but, on the other hand, it may be very emblematic of what basketball has become and why I do not care for the sport.
Basketball is now more about the individual than the team. Oh, sure, every sport has its stars, but the NBA "marketing the stars" philosophy has backfired on them to a large degree.
There is no more Michael Jordan on the court, yet he is still perhaps the most visible basketball pitchman around.
Unlike other sports, which market teams and the sport itself- entities that don't go away- basketball marketed its stars. And LeBron James taking over for Michael Jordan is like Jimmie Foxx taking over for Babe Ruth. It just ain't the same.
In more and more cases, it's not if the Lakers won, it's how many Kobe scored.
And even here- AT DAVIDSON COLLEGE- which is the last place you'd expect to hear about the star-power philosophy- it is being pushed on us by Patsos.
But he is merely playing up the mindset of the sport. Hey, even if Loyola won that game- SO WHAT? It doesn't help them in conference standings. They still won't have an at-large berth to the NCAAs!
Hold Curry scoreless with a wacky strategy and get free time on ESPN! The result of the game is, as Patsos said, meaningless.
PittsburghBucs Wrote:"They'll remember this as the game we held Curry scoreless instead of the day we lost by 30."
It seemed like a moronic statement at the time, but, on the other hand, it may be very emblematic of what basketball has become and why I do not care for the sport.
Basketball is now more about the individual than the team. Oh, sure, every sport has its stars, but the NBA "marketing the stars" philosophy has backfired on them to a large degree.
There is no more Michael Jordan on the court, yet he is still perhaps the most visible basketball pitchman around.
Unlike other sports, which market teams and the sport itself- entities that don't go away- basketball marketed its stars. And LeBron James taking over for Michael Jordan is like Jimmie Foxx taking over for Babe Ruth. It just ain't the same.
In more and more cases, it's not if the Lakers won, it's how many Kobe scored.
And even here- AT DAVIDSON COLLEGE- which is the last place you'd expect to hear about the star-power philosophy- it is being pushed on us by Patsos.
But he is merely playing up the mindset of the sport. Hey, even if Loyola won that game- SO WHAT? It doesn't help them in conference standings. They still won't have an at-large berth to the NCAAs!
Hold Curry scoreless with a wacky strategy and get free time on ESPN! The result of the game is, as Patsos said, meaningless.
Individual over team true for several sports not just basketball, the NHL is going down the same road as the NBA selling individual players over teams. Anytime there are hockey highlights on ESPN its "Sid Cosby and the Penguins" or "Ovechkin and the Capitals." The NFL does the same, instead of Patriots vs Colts the game is billed as "Manning vs Brady."
But not to the same degree as hoops.
The Pats haven't had Tom Brady this year and they are still, for better or worse, the Pats.
PittsburghBucs Wrote:But not to the same degree as hoops.
The Pats haven't had Tom Brady this year and they are still, for better or worse, the Pats.
NFL not to same degree, the NHL is just as individual driven as the NBA though.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Okay, I do not think that the NHL is JUST AS individual driven as the NBA. There are all sorts of factors, including the fact less star striven teams often enjoy great popularity because of systems they play- whereas in the NBA there are few basketball "systems" (they just legalized the zone defense, for instance).
The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't really had any superstar in ages. Maybe Mats Sundin. He's their all-time leading scorer and he doesn't even have 1,000 points in a Leafs sweater.
But among the names Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Rocket Richard, Gordie Howe, Phil Espisito, and Mats Sundin- which one doesn't belong?
Yet the Leafs are probably the most popular team in Canada. Yes- even more than the Habs- as their fan base is largely restricted to Quebec.
I won't deny that the NHL wants a star like a Wayne Gretzky (though even Gretzky couldn't get the NHL a real American TV contract in his prime) or a Lemieux and hope that Crosby or Malkin or someone like that will arise. What league doesn't?
But the sweater- and the mask- is as marketable as the jersey and the helmet. And so much of football, by the design of the sport, is that the individual is de-emphasized. Linemen don't carry the ball. We don't see the faces of the players.
You can still identify a hockey player's face on the ice, but goalies don't score goals.
Besides, you would never hear a hockey coach say "Sure we lost to the Pens, 5-1, but they'll remember this as the day we shut out Sid the Kid!"
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Okay, I do not think that the NHL is JUST AS individual driven as the NBA. There are all sorts of factors, including the fact less star striven teams often enjoy great popularity because of systems they play- whereas in the NBA there are few basketball "systems" (they just legalized the zone defense, for instance).
The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't really had any superstar in ages. Maybe Mats Sundin. He's their all-time leading scorer and he doesn't even have 1,000 points in a Leafs sweater.
But among the names Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Rocket Richard, Gordie Howe, Phil Espisito, and Mats Sundin- which one doesn't belong?
Yet the Leafs are probably the most popular team in Canada. Yes- even more than the Habs- as their fan base is largely restricted to Quebec.
I won't deny that the NHL wants a star like a Wayne Gretzky (though even Gretzky couldn't get the NHL a real American TV contract in his prime) or a Lemieux and hope that Crosby or Malkin or someone like that will arise. What league doesn't?
But the sweater- and the mask- is as marketable as the jersey and the helmet. And so much of football, by the design of the sport, is that the individual is de-emphasized. Linemen don't carry the ball. We don't see the faces of the players.
You can still identify a hockey player's face on the ice, but goalies don't score goals.
Besides, you would never hear a hockey coach say "Sure we lost to the Pens, 5-1, but they'll remember this as the day we shut out Sid the Kid!"
PittsburghBucs Wrote:Besides, you would never hear a hockey coach say "Sure we lost to the Pens, 5-1, but they'll remember this as the day we shut out Sid the Kid!"
One stupid coach makes this comment and you indite the sport? And I don't doubt a lower level hockey coach would not brag about holding Cosby pointless even if they had lost the game.
Yes Maple Leafs are popular in Canada, but where else? The NHL jumped for joy when the Pittsburgh made the finals because of Cosby just the same as the NBA when the Cavs made the finals with Lebron to avoid Pistons vs Spurs. You can say great teams aren't celebrated in the NHL anymore than great teams in the NBA, great teams with stars are celebrated in hockey just like basketball. Teams without stars aren't celebrated in either league. The same hold true for the NFL, the Titans went 10-0 without anyone ready to call them the best team in the league or predicting a superbowl, most still don't. Why is that?
So you're saying the NFL is star driven because the Titans are 12-1 and not thought to be a clear favorite for the Big Dance?
Hey, I'll even give you this. The Miami Dolphins, before Super Bowl VII, were three-point underdogs to the Washington Redskins.
Now, why is that? Because they were the "No Name Defense" while the Redskins' "Over the Hill Gang" were a group of veteran stars?
Perhaps. But also possible was the fact the Redskins were coming from the NFC/NFL and the Dolphins from the AFC/AFL just three years after the merger, that Don Shula was 0-2 in Super Bowls and certainly would have had some "can't win the big one" stigma, or that people just felt a 16-0 team that needed a fake punt to beat a team on a 40-year losing streak to get to the Super Bowl was due for a loss?
Let me show you the shortcoming of your Maple Leafs arguement-
"Dale Earnhart was popular in America, but where else?"
"LeBron James is popular in America, but where else?"
"Manchester United is popular in England, but where else?"
WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS is the comment of the "stupid coach" is very much the MINDSET of the entire sport right now.
It's all about me, not about team. And you can't say that about hockey, where assists count as a point just like a goal does.
PittsburghBucs Wrote:So you're saying the NFL is star driven because the Titans are 12-1 and not thought to be a clear favorite for the Big Dance?
Hey, I'll even give you this. The Miami Dolphins, before Super Bowl VII, were three-point underdogs to the Washington Redskins.
Now, why is that? Because they were the "No Name Defense" while the Redskins' "Over the Hill Gang" were a group of veteran stars?
Perhaps. But also possible was the fact the Redskins were coming from the NFC/NFL and the Dolphins from the AFC/AFL just three years after the merger, that Don Shula was 0-2 in Super Bowls and certainly would have had some "can't win the big one" stigma, or that people just felt a 16-0 team that needed a fake punt to beat a team on a 40-year losing streak to get to the Super Bowl was due for a loss?
Let me show you the shortcoming of your Maple Leafs arguement-
"Dale Earnhart was popular in America, but where else?"
"LeBron James is popular in America, but where else?"
"Manchester United is popular in England, but where else?"
WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS is the comment of the "stupid coach" is very much the MINDSET of the entire sport right now.
It's all about me, not about team. And you can't say that about hockey, where assists count as a point just like a goal does.
1st off, I never said the NFL was as star driven as the NBA or the NHL.
2nd, NASCAR is not based outside of the U.S, the NHL is, the NBA is not based outside of the U.S, the NHL is. (although guys like Lebron, Kobe, and D.Wade are
MAJOR STARS oversees)
There are too many soccer teams and leagues for one team to be a fan favorite to the same degree.
BTW, please don't try to sell me that hockey is more selfless than basketball because of their respective scoring systems. Goals are still whats most important in hockey just like points in basketball. I would argue that assists are more valued in the basketball than hockey, PG's pride themselves on their assist rate. Chris Paul was a MVP finest based completely on his 11 assist pg, who was last Hart Trophy finest based completely on their assist rate?
22- You gave me an example of the Tennessee Titans not being hailed by one and all as the predestined AFC Champion as proof the NFL is, in fact, star driven.
The NBA isn't based outside the USA? This is news to the Toronto Raptors.
Who are yet another example of how when you put an NBA and and NHL team in the same city, the NHL more often than not wins the popularity battle.
I don't debate LeBron James is a major star overseas. So is Mario Lemieux, as Christmas I sold my old Mario Lemieux jacket that no longer fit me for $100 on eBay to a guy from Finland.
But you asked "Outside Canada, who cares about the Maple Leafs?" Well, I would easily say millions upon millions of people.
If you want to argue that assists are more valued in basketball than in hockey you know nothing about either sport.
By the way, what's your point?
Mine is that Patsos' comment is indicitive to the line of thinking in basketball in that the individual is held in higher regard than the team.
I was listening to Bill Meade's show and he mentioned this very thing concerning some player on the Golden State Warriors that went to Brentwood Academy.
Yours is- what- LeBron James is more popular overseas than the Cleveland Cavaliers are?
How does that do anything to refute my point?
PittsburghBucs Wrote:By the way, what's your point?
Mine is that Patsos' comment is indicitive to the line of thinking in basketball in that the individual is held in higher regard than the team.
I was listening to Bill Meade's show and he mentioned this very thing concerning some player on the Golden State Warriors that went to Brentwood Academy.
Yours is- what- LeBron James is more popular overseas than the Cleveland Cavaliers are?
How does that do anything to refute my point?
My point is that you are calling out basketball for something that is not unique to basketball, but is true about sports across the board.
Every sport has stars- that is for sure.
But the overemphasis on "marketing the stars" rather than the game or the teams has led to the demise of the NBA from their peak of the early '90s.
You have to ask yourself why three teams have moved in this decade in the NBA when the other three sports have only had one franchise relocation at that time.
The individual has overshadowed the team for a long time in basketball and much more so than in any other team sport.
The media is KILLING Clinton Portis and Terrell Owens right now for taking on more of a "me first" mindset, especially when both the Redskins and Cowboys are contending for the playoffs.
Tim Smith- ON THIS LEVEL- was the epitome of "me first." Might I remind you of how he ignored all his teammates not once, but twice, while taking the final shot of ETSU's two NCAA appearances in this decade?
His me-first ways cost ETSU the chance to advance as a program. But rarely was he ever called out for it.
Was it because the media covering are hopeless shills and the fans are schmucks?
Possibly, but I would say an additional factor is because we've come to expect it on the hardwood, while we still remember Mark Wedloe turning down a chance for new football shoes to call a running play from the seven.
22- I have a question for you.
This weekend Davidson is being broadcast on CBS to the country.
The BACKUP game is the No. 2 vs. No. 4 teams in the country.
Now you consider that for a second on how much basketball- even at this level- markets the stars. Stephen Curry- the individual- is more of a marketing draw to basketball audiences than No. 2 vs. No. 4.
It simply isn't like that in other team sports.
PittsburghBucs Wrote:22- I have a question for you.
This weekend Davidson is being broadcast on CBS to the country.
The BACKUP game is the No. 2 vs. No. 4 teams in the country.
Now you consider that for a second on how much basketball- even at this level- markets the stars. Stephen Curry- the individual- is more of a marketing draw to basketball audiences than No. 2 vs. No. 4.
It simply isn't like that in other team sports.
What was the question again?
My bad.
I think the proof is in the pudding.
Patsos playing against the individual instead of the team is hardly surprising.
It is- after all- BASKETBALL- where the star trumps the team every time.