|
There are no good rivalries in the NBA. This may come as a hot take, but it’s true. There are no good rivalries in the NBA, and there have not been any in over a decade. When the media mentions a rivalry in today’s NBA, it is nearly always hyperbole created to draw more viewers, which, given the teams involved in the so-called rivalries, is unnecessary. In the other major North American sports leagues, there are rivalries. Real rivalries. Rivalries born from bad blood between two teams from proximity or history. If you ask a baseball fan about the best rivalries in baseball, chances are they’ll name the same rivalries as someone from 20 years ago. Same with football, same with hockey. Hell, even Major League Soccer has a rivalry that dates back to the 1970’s! This is where pro basketball fails: ever since Shaquille O’Neil was traded from the Lakers to the Heat, unofficially ending the Lakers-Spurs rivalry that captured imaginations around the turn of the millennium, the ‘rivalries’ that ESPN and TNT tout only hold water for as long as the teams involved produce wins. Herein lies the problem: the NBA rivalries of today proclaimed by the media almost certainly have no historical value. I recently saw a segment on television asking if Celtics-Wizards was the best rivalry in the NBA. When did this happen? If you ask a Celtics fan their opinions on the Wizards, you’re not going to find a lot of fire. The same is true for the reverse, although there would be some resentment for Boston’s historic exposure compared to Washington. There is only one reason that such an idea of a rivalry is put forth – both teams are winning. Every ‘rivalry’ that has been proclaimed has that one thing in common – the two teams are playing good basketball. That is not a rivalry. That is a high-quality match-up. Other sports are not immune to this, but it is decidedly pronounced in the NBA. Part of this is due to some traditional powers losing competitiveness, with the 76ers, Knicks, and Lakers giving some of the largest markets in America no reason to follow teams with notable traditional rivals. What happened to rivalries in the NBA? I’ll give you a hint – he’s from Akron, Ohio. When LeBron James entered the league in 2003, it marked the beginning of the end of hate in the NBA. James’ basketball abilities made him a star before he was even drafted, but there was a problem: the Cleveland Cavaliers had no historic rivalries, and played in a city that was allergic to winning championships. Essentially, the media erased the word ‘Cleveland’ from the basketball lexicon, and renamed the team LeBron James and his Cavaliers. The identity of the team apart from James was no longer important, and as such, one could not hate the Cavaliers in a way that was above hating James. With that, the dichotomy of the NBA changed. No longer was the name on the front of the jersey important. Instead of hating teams, we’ve been conditioned to some sort of fantasy hate where individual players are more important than the cities they represent. Of course, the era of the free agency super-team has camouflaged that fact, but when 80% of the league is irrelevant you can’t have intense, consistent rivalries year after year. Is there anything to be done? I’m afraid not anytime soon. The culture of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” has gotten rid of “we don’t like them, and they don’t like us”. Being an All-Star means nothing if you don’t have a ring. As such, the media must declare any match-up involving two teams with winning records a rivalry. The Patriots have the Jets, the Red Sox have the Yankees, the Bruins have the Canadiens, and the Celtics have…the Wizards.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 12:21 |
|