Just try reading it... its really not that much. Really.

By no means am I an NBA expert, but i've been watching the game (specifically the Knicks) for many years. I've always took it as it came, never stepping back and analyzing the NBA motive: entertainment -> audience -> money. This implies that the NBA's just a show. A toned down version of the WWF, which always attracted the same criticism: "Uhh, dude, don't you know its fake?.. Then why are you watching it?" Thats why I didnt. No one wants to be watching a show/movie/whatever knowing that theyre showing it to you not because of the entertaining content itself but the money it brings in.

Anyway, thats why I never stepped back and analyzed the NBA as a purely money-making machine. I didnt want the hard-hitting truth. Professionals competing at their best just to win was what I always wanted it to be. I knew it wasn't exactly like that, but never have I had to take that step back.

Not until recently that is. Sure, the forced, unnatural feeling of the game popped up now and then (millionares not playing to full potential, etc), but it was always agreed that it was wrong. The players SHOULD be playing to their full potential and they should be playing to win, not a contract extension.

However, the zone has changed some people's opinions that maybe the game should just be entertaining, even if it does sacrifice good ball playing. However, I stand strong with my point of view. The zone makes the game less explosive, but its a completely legitimate tool and I don't know how anyone could suggest to get rid of it. The NBA isnt AND1 StreetBall, SlamBall, or even the All-Star Game. Its not supposed to be that. Its supposed to be, as i've repeated for the ump-teenth time already, the best of the best competing for the championship. Thats why I was shocked to hear a veteran basketball watcher, the Knicks announcer (not Clyde, but Marv's replacement - I never actually paid attention to his name), say that the zone ruins the NBA. When I heard T-Mac say it last year on the Magic, I just assumed it was because of his frustrating year and because he's exactly the type of player that would get hurt by the zone. His point of view was biased. But when the impartial Knicks announcer agrees that the zone hurts, rather than helps, I cringed. Why eliminate something that makes you play a better game? I thought of the future: more lost Olympic/World Championship games.

If you want entertainment, why don't you just add trampolines? Or ask the players just to play no defense and just dunk all the time? Heck, just make the Globetrotters a team! And if you really want entertainment, lets have behind the scenes camera crews follow the players around have them make "confessions" after every game? It'll be called Reality Basketball.

Ok, maybe those conclusions were too radical, but they prove a point. Don't get me wrong, I love drama off the court and I love high-flying dunks on the court. Shaq vs Kobe (imo) is great and Ariza's stuffs are awesome. Theres nothing wrong with that, until it becomes intentional - when the league changes the rules, formally or informally, to make the game more entertaining. The rules are the rules and they must only be changed if they are being exploited. Keep the zone, the 3pt shot, and anything else.

Anyway, thats my rant. I congratulate you if you got to the end... or just scrolled to it, rather than reading all of it.

[Edited by - metra on 12/04/2004 17:10:10]

Posted by metra:

Anyway, thats my rant. I congratulate you if you got to the end... or just scrolled to it, rather than reading all of it.

[Edited by - metra on 12/04/2004 17:10:10]

Thanks

I'd prefer to see less entertainment and more basketball, too.... the Pistons shutting some team down to 70 points is just as beautiful as the mavericks scoring 120...