Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.
In the style of Justin Timberlake, I’m bringing hatred back.
Where did it go, you ask? I don’t know. But it seems to have been missing in the NBA for a while. The hostile rivalries of the 1980s and 1990s are long gone, and in its place exists a kinder, gentler NBA. Excuse me if I’m not quaking with excitement at the prospect of a neutered NBA. Instead of intense competitions that bring out the best in players, now NBA fans are treated to NBA Lite (“now with fewer calories and less excitement than ever”). As the rivalries died out so did the exhilaration that comes with them. But a glimmer of hope has emerged as of late. A little ruthless aggression has breathed new life into the game, and basketball will be all the better for it.
As Bleacher Fan points out in the introduction to this debate, NBA commissioner David Stern has taken great strides to clean up the tarnished image of the NBA. While I agree that the NBA was in need of commissioner Stern’s image makeover, amidst player-fan riots and players dressing with the flamboyance of Flava Flav, the NBA cannot afford to purge all the edginess from the sport unless he wants to turn the game into a fast paced version of Bocce ball. I maintain that a healthy dose of hostility is exactly what the sport needs to spice up storylines. Plus, commissioner Stern should be happy that NBA headlines are about actual games instead of about where LeBron James will play next season. (Again, for the record I do not think it will be in Cleveland, in spite of this MUST SEE promotional video.)
Bringing a little hate back to basketball is great because it makes the league entertaining again on and off the court. For the casual NBA fan, like myself, it seems that the NBA playoffs last forever, and include practically every team in the league. Don’t get me wrong, they can still be exciting. But just not while teams like the Milwaukee Bucks, Oklahoma City Thunder, Utah Jazz are still in the playoff hunt. The only reason I even knew that the Bucks were in the playoffs was because of the video of Bucks’ mascot’s insane dunk. I actually had to double check to make sure the Thunder was a real team, and, for the record, I am still not convinced (seriously when did that happen?). My attention remains ungrabbed until the NBA Finals, but the heat in the Boston Celtics and Cleveland Cavaliers matchup has actually made me pay attention. Similarly, things are starting to get interesting between another renewed rivalry between the Spurs and Suns. If this can pique the interest of a non-diehard fan, then it certainly cannot be bad for the sport.
Really and truly it should not even be about what David Stern wants as much as what the people want. I know today’s debate judge, Bleacher Fan, to be a man of the people. Because of that I want to enlist the support of the guys in the cheap seats in my argument. While not a very scientific approach (I apologize to my high school and college statistics teachers), I base this part of my argument off of comments I read left by fans on Web sites discussing the revived rivalries. Because in the end who is better than the fans to determine what they want to see in their sport? For every detractor that wanted to downplay the hate in the game there seemed to be three more that like the excitement and spontaneity that it brought to the game.
To me it just makes sense. Would fans be more entertained by a more reserved game that resembles a tea party, or an all out war on the boards that resembles the Acclaim classic Arch Rivals? I think that is a pretty easy choice.
