Thoughts on Basketball

Here are my thoughts on basketball in general, along with several hot topics that relate to the game.

The Good

If you want to talk about a sport which, when done properly, emphasizes the best in humans, then you want to talk about basketball.  Teamwork is the lifeblood of good basketball.  All contributions are to be valued; even though the contributions may not be equal, the essence of team is to accept the contributions and the contributor as being your equal in every way.  Concepts like trust and respect grow from this fertile ground, and in it, you find the best humanity has to offer.  This leads to sacrifice, which leads back into teamwork, and you have a vicious cycle toward the positive goal.

My favorite player of all time was Bobby Jones, formerly of the Philadelphia 76ers and the Denver Nuggets, out of the University of North Carolina.  Jones was the prototypical "good guy":  a devoted Christian, unselfish on the court, a recognized leader of the defensive scheme of Philadelphia and one of the top defenders in the league (making the NBA's All-Defensive Team 9 times).  He was a solid shooter in terms of percentage.  He didn't need nor want lots of recognition.  Despite epilepsy, he was considered one of the top reserves in the NBA for years - a player who could legitimately start for most of the teams, but who was content to play his role behind folks like Julius "Dr. J." Erving.  Even now, when Bobby Jones's name is mentioned, it's mentioned with nothing but respect.  So yes, basketball still offers us heroes.

The Bad

There has always been a component of selfishness in basketball played the wrong way.  It becomes a part of ego, an attempt to show dominance over others, as if it makes one a better person.  The problem that most don't understand is that individualism is the enemy of good basketball.  What you see on your And 1 videos is nothing more than the worst possible corruption of what basketball is.

And the NBA stars aren't helping matters.  From entourages that threaten to destroy all that a player's success has built to misguided attempts to showcase musical skills that don't exist, the life of privilege resembles that of the most spoiled debutante could only dream of.  It's no longer a competition for the trophy, but for shoe contracts, rap albums, and bad movies - all in pursuit of the all-mighty dollar.

Charles Barkley pointed out the disconnect of the white businessman from the ghetto-culture that many pro basketball players seem to embrace.  Danny Ainge pointed out - almost 10 years ago - that there were kids growing up that actually believed Jason "White Chocolate" Williams to be superior to all-time assist and steal leader John Stockton.  As basketball becomes a seedier kind of sport, its popularity will wane, despite league attempts to alter the perception of the image rather than trying to actually change it.

The Ugly

As I type, the NBA is marred by one of its biggest scandals since I've been following pro basketball - the Tim Donaghy scandal.  Tim Donaghy, a (now) former NBA referee, admitted to betting on games, and passing along information to gamblers about games.  He has also made claims about other officials engaged in less-than-professional behavior.  But the most damaging claim of all is his claim that the league encouraged officials to call games so as to influence outcomes - most notably, Game 6 in the 2002 Lakers/Kings series.

So is it true?  My question is, "Does it matter?"  Even if it is eventually proven to be a fabrication, as I type here today, it COULD BE true.  The officials for the game were either corrupt, or they were incompetent, and either is a huge black eye for professional  basketball.  If the former is true, then basketball is rigged.  If the latter is true, then it might has well be rigged.

For years, everyone has known that there are "superstar calls" - calls which favor the presumed superstar player, whether or not it is the correct call.  Also, there are such things as "make-up" calls - since a referee knows he made a bad call on one end, he makes another bad call at the other end to make up for it.  Any way you slice it, this is corrupt basketball.  What makes it so egregious is that when the ordinary fan realizes what is being done, the reaction is predictably obvious:  the fan evaluates the superstar as less than what he is made out to be. 

If a player is talented, good refereeing does not hold the player back, but instead, elevates this player to the level that that player's talent can take him.  While that player may foul out of a game here and there, and may have to sit because of foul trouble, and that may upset some fans who paid good money to see that player play, it is a self-correcting system;  the player will have to play better to stay in games in the future - focusing the player on improvement rather than entitlement.

And the protesting of calls?  It's again, individualism and entitlement.  "I should get that call, because I am who I am."  When you establish that the call is an objective one, that it doesn't change just because of who you are, then that opens the door to shutting down whining, because there is nothing to be gained status-wise by berating officials.  The call/no-call wasn't made based on who you were;  it was based on what happened on the play.

Instead, the NBA is going to concentrate on a "no flopping" rule, when what they need to do is fix the way the game is officiated. lest the NBA's officials and the NBA itself become their equivalents in pro wrestling.

 

College vs. Pro

So which is better - college basketball, or pro basketball?  Many devotees of college basketball will cite superior team play, more passion for the sport, a more meaningful regular season, and less showboating as reasons that college basketball is a better game to watch.  The boldest will even cite superior officiating, with fewer "make-up" and "superstar" calls.

I don't buy it.

Professional basketball is where the best of the best play.  If you want to see the most polished and most elite skills, you want to watch professional basketball.  Skeptics will talk about the travelling that goes on in pro basketball - without realizing that the rules for travelling in pros and in college are somewhat different.

Pro basketball exposes the weaknesses of any player, and as a result, demonstrates how to attack a similar weakness of an opponent, using the most elite skill set to do it.  Pro basketball has its share of prima donnas, but if you follow the SPORT rather than a particular team, you'll quickly discover the huge disparity of talent between a pro team and a college team.  Greater talent, greater precision, greater skill set.  I'll take pro over college any day.

Pay the Collegiates?

Okay, colleges are raking in major bucks off of the college kids playing for them.  Shouldn't we pay the college kids, who really make this income possible?  After all, without them, there's no game.

I'm strongly against the idea of paying collegiate players.  First of all, it becomes a fight for money, and in such a case, good basketball can suffer - just look at the way NBA players are more fussy about playing time and such during their contract year - and at how much more they produce.  Teaching kids bad habits at college is a bad idea.  Secondly, college players are already getting paid;  it's something called a "scholarship."  With that, you can not only sharpen your basketball game, but you can progress toward a college degree, which offers additional earning power after your basketball career is over.  Third, if players were paid, colleges would turn into essentially semi-pro franchises, rather than trying to preserve the education standards which inevitably help young players by teaching them off-court discipline in their academic and personal lives.

So what about the kid who wants to be an NBA player, but can't cut it at college?  About the same thing that happens for other folks who are missing a big skill - their future is hurt.  It's no different than a banker who has socialization problems or an accountant with poor reading skills.  If NBA players are to represent an image, we want the best AND THE BRIGHTEST.  I think that requires at least the same level of education that would be required by a college.

High School Direct to the NBA

Not surprisingly, I'm against players coming directly into the NBA from High School - even if they have the talent to do it.  A certain amount of self-discipline is required at any job.  College teaches that to a certain degree.  Plus, this gives every kid a chance to see what their future holds before that kid commits everything to his NBA potential and throws away education opportunities.  And it gives the NBA better looks at the talent that they'll be drafting.

Basketball and Gambling:  the Tim Donaghy scandal

The problem with any sport is that too many people have too much at stake on the outcome for one reason or another.  Gambling adds to this problem.  And when the stakes are raised high enough, someone wants to make money off of it.  And if the money gets big enough, someone will risk cheating.

Tim Donaghy got in with the gamblers, and as a result, is rightfully going to be sent to jail.  However, what he's had to say since that time is intriguing.  It amounts to, "Hey, I'm not the only one;  the NBA has outcomes it would like to influence subtly."

To me, that's a serious charge.  If the NBA has anything to do with the enforcement of rules in a manner with the intent of influencing a game, then the game is no longer a fair competition.  And why would I want to watch a sport when the competition is unfair?

The NBA MUST clean up its act;  rid itself of any ties to gambling, ban players, coaches, team officials, and referees from gambling, etc.  It must be proactive in demonstrating the fairness of the competition.  And the league office and Commissioner Stern have to stop the arrogant act that everything is hunky-dory.  They have to start demanding more accountability of players, coaches, officials, and yes, the league itself.