Basketball Purist or Revolutionary?
| 6
|
by Zupaclypse
As we all know, the American political system is a by-product of two basic schools of thought: conservatism and liberalism. By definition, conservatives resist change while liberals encourage it. The NBA community is also split along the same theoretical lines. Everyone wants to see the professional sport flourish, but there is a disagreement on the means of achieving this dream. Basketball purists, concerned with preserving the integrity of the game, generally oppose radical notions such as playoff reseeding, rule modifications, and NBA regular season reduction. These ideas are generally proposed by revolutionaries, who view the sport as a constantly evolving product. As always, there are folks, residing in the center, that pick and choose sides based on particular pressing issues.
With the TV ratings for the NBA Finals on a continuous downswing, the NBA community has questioned the seeding format, particular when teams from two very unbalanced conferences play each other at the end of the post-season. Upsets, which generally spark significant outsider interest, are thus limited to the earliest round. These consequences have given strength to argument for reseeding. Several different strategies have been proposed, from reseeding every round like in the NHL, seeding all 16 playoff teams irrespective of conference, or having cross conference play in each round. Purists object, believing instead that economics and natural progression will lead to conference equality eventually. In addition, they fear a drastic overhaul will alienate the majority of the fan base that loves the game in its original form. It is important to note that the league recognizes the stakes and has made some adjustments, guaranteeing a division winner only a top #4 seed in a 3 division conference (used to be top #3), and expanding the first round from a best-of-five to a best-of-7 format.
While playoff reseeding attempts to change the matchup structure, revolutionaries have also throughout the years proposed changes to the actual rules of the sport. This is in order to render a fan-friendly up-tempo product like the Showtime Lakers of the 80s. Purists believe the fans really just want to see teams who are competitive, exhibit class, and play hard. The enthusiasm for today's Phoenix Suns and the lack of interest in the NBA Champion San Antonio Spurs, suggests the liberals are winning the argument. The NBA has moved towards a more free-flowing game by dis-allowing physical contact on the perimeter, widening the lane, and allowing zone defenses. With the NBA Finals dominated by low-scoring and poor-shooting displays, the NBA may consider further rule tweaks in the near future, hoping to encourage what is perceived to be a more popular brand of basketball.
Another far-reaching proposition to improve the NBA game is regular season game reduction. While Purists cringe at the thought that a comparison between historical and modern-day statistics would be infinitely more difficult, the revolutionary case is built around the fact that a shorter season would cater to the limited attention span of the casual fan. The flip side of this argument is that historical comparisons are vital to the long term success of the league, inducing excitement amongst loyal basketball enthusiasts.
Once thought to be a revolutionary concept, globalization has radically changed the face of basketball as we know it. Purists believe that too much effort is being committed to finding and recruiting talent overseas as opposed to American colleges and Universities. Also, they feel the NBA is too focused on promoting the game in other countries, thereby ignoring and alienating the substantial support for basketball (think March Madness) here at home. Here again, it seems the league has sided with the revolutionaries, evident by the steady influx of foreign players in the pros and the conduction of NBA training camps and pre-season games abroad, The concept has materialized to the point that an NBA franchise in Europe could one day become a reality.
These are just a few of the critical issues affecting the NBA today with many more on the horizon. While the community is divided into two main schools of thought, it seems the league has sided with change when it comes to how the game is played and who is involved. At the same time, the league has maintained the status-quo approach when it comes to how the game is viewed historically. With the ever increasing options on television and the internet, the NBA understands its in a fight to not only add entertainment consumers, but also to hold onto to existing ones as well. This is why the concerns and ideas of both sides cannot be ignored.
