The Crying Game

As a kid who grew up playing soccer, basketball and baseball, I admit that I was often a pretty bad sport.  As a little leaguer I started by complaining about questionable called third strikes, and even now I've been known to give a rec league basketball referee an earful about a no-call on one of my patented out-of-control drives to the basket.  To me, the arguing comes naturally - I'm a verbose person who enjoys a good debate, and I've always been quick to engage an official in "conversation" after witnessing a call I don't agree with.  As I've been watching a ton of NBA basketball this season, however, I'm starting to truly see how annoying all of this bitching and moaning can be from an outsider's perspective.

After watching at least parts of the vast majority of Knicks games this season, I saw a TON of complaining to the officials.  While some of these seemed justified, seeing the same players complain after virtually every whistle eventually became, for lack of a better term, annoying.  When David Lee played for New York, he had a reputation for being a complainer, but I never really noticed it.  This year, however, all of the crying to the officials seemed to be contagious - it started with Tyson Chandler and eventually infected Raymond Felton, Carmelo Anthony, JR Smith and more.  By the playoffs, it was a full-blown outbreak of bitching.  Not only did it lead to numerous technical fouls and transition layups for the opposition, but as a Knicks fan it also became frustrating to watch.

Unfortunately, the complaining isn't contained inside Madison Square Garden.  Last night I watched Miami lose in Indiana to the Pacers and saw Chris Bosh, Ray Allen and even LeBron James whine relentlessly.  The NBA refs have received a lot of (often deserved) criticism over the last few weeks, but there's no way that every call they make could have been wrong.  Watching the reactions, body language and lips of the Heat players, however, you'd have thought that every single call (questionable or otherwise) had gone against them.  If I was rooting for Indiana before the series, I'm even more of a temporary Pacers fan after watching the first four games of the Eastern Conference Finals.  As a fan, watching players complain isn't much fun.

While my rec league basketball games don't have many fans to consider, realizing how annoying all of the complaining is has forced me to reconsider how I act towards referees and umpires.  While I've always had a short fuse and know that the refs are accustomed to it and can handle it, I imagine that my teammates, opponents and spectators find my behavior off-putting, just as I hate watching Chris Bosh whine about every call.  Unfortunately it's taken me almost 30 years to learn this valuable lesson, but I now recognize that, when it comes to crying to the refs, change is better late than never.

Playing the Lottery

Few seemingly-benign sports concepts are criticized more than the NBA Draft Lottery, the 2013 edition of which takes place tonight (8:30 PM ET on ESPN).  What on the surface seems like a pretty basic lottery system - a random drawing weighted by won-loss record in the previous season to determine which NBA teams get the draft's first three selections - is ripe with conspiracy theories and fans crying foul; SB Nation (admittedly not the most reputable of sports media publications) did a feature this morning entitled "An NBA Draft Lottery conspiracy theory for every team" rather than focusing its efforts on any legitimate analysis.  Whether or not you think the Lottery is rigged, it's likely that you have some complaint about the mechanics of the event.

Some people argue that the weighting is too heavily skewed towards the worst teams, giving teams incentive to tank at the end of the regular season to try and improve their odds of getting the top overall pick.  An equal number of people, however, argue the exact opposite, claiming that the worst teams don't win the lottery often enough to help them become competitive more quickly.  Even aside from debates about the lottery weighting, many people argue for a different system altogether.  Some want a tournament for non-playoff teams (or some subset thereof), with the winner taking the top overall selection. Others want the NBA to adopt the NFL model of giving the worst team (by record) the top pick, tanking be damned.  Advocates of the current system are few and far between, though the critics are far from agreeing on a next best alternative.

One criticism I do agree with is that the lottery drawing shouldn't be held behind closed doors.  While I fully believe the system to be legitimate, doing the drawing before the announcement and not in plain sight leads to much of the conspiracy theory development.  While this might be what the NBA is in fact going for - people are talking about the NBA Draft Lottery after all, aren't they? - doing the actually drawing of the ping pong balls (or equivalent) in public could simultaneously add legitimacy to the system and make the event more exciting.  Don't people love to watch the local lottery ball drawings during the six o'clock news on their local broadcast affiliate?  Couldn't the NBA make the Lottery some awesome Deal Or No Deal-style drawing that would be super compelling for the live audience?  I would be 10x more likely to watch this than the current system, which at best features an awkward moment from the team representative and at worst is just plain boring.

Truth be told, I will tune into the NBA Draft Lottery tonight regardless, even though this year's potential rookie field lacks major star power.  I think, all things considered, the current system does a solid job of finding a middle ground between promoting competitive balance and discouraging late-season tanking.  While we'll always have the conspiracy theorists ready to pounce, I don't have as many issues with the current system as many others do.  If the Sacramento Kings (currently with the 6th-best odds) somehow land the top pick tonight, however, I might have to rethink my viewpoint.   

Head to Head Competition

Despite NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's background as general counsel at the NBA, the two leagues are completely separate entities.  While the two organizations are loosely tied together by the fact that a number of American (and one Canadian) arenas house both NBA and NHL teams (and in some cases, like New York's Madison Square Garden, Toronto's Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment or Washington's Monumental Sports, the teams are owned by the same company), they are operated independently and, in many cases, actively compete with each other for viewers, game attendees and sponsors.  Nowhere is this more evident than during the playoffs, where many U.S. markets have basketball and hockey teams simultaneously competing for market- and mind-share.

New York is one of those markets, and I've been a fan caught in the middle.  Not only are the Knicks and Islanders both in the playoffs at the same time (hardly a common occurrence), but they're currently on the same game schedule.  On Wednesday, I had to choose between Knicks @ Celtics Game Five and Isles @ Penguins Game One (not to mention a nationally televised Braves game against NL East rival Washington).  Tonight, I'll be put in the same position as the Knicks try to close out their first round series in Boston while the Islanders try to even their series in Pittsburgh at the exact same time.  While I've been trying to flip back and forth between the two, I've been undoubtedly watching more basketball - mainly because I like basketball better as a sport, find the NBA playoffs more compelling than the NHL's, and have more positive memories associated with the Knicks postseason runs than I do the Islanders.  Plus, how can the NHL compete with the NBA's tradition of great nationally televised basketball?

While I'm all for open competition between the two leagues, I don't think it's too much to ask to have the NBA and NFL talk to each other about playoff scheduling, particularly in the first rounds when both leagues have eight series going on simultaneously.  I know there are a lot of factors to consider - television schedules, arena availability, etc. - but I find it difficult to believe that the Knicks / Isles schedule overlap couldn't have been avoided (especially considering that neither the Penguins nor the Islanders have an NBA team in their building to worry about).  Maybe there aren't a ton of fans of both the Knicks and the Isles - most Knicks fans are Rangers fans whereas Isles fans my be slowly gravitating towards the Nets, especially since the two will share Barclays Center in a few years - but there are enough to justify some rescheduling.

With the lack of playoff successes (and appearances) the Knicks and Isles have had over the last decade, perhaps I shouldn't be complaining - I feel lucky to have them both in the postseason this year, and flipping channels isn't the worst thing in the world.  Hell, it's even given me a legitimate excuse to use my picture-in-picture functionality.  But this week of playoff fun would undoubtedly be more enjoyable if I had one game to watch each night rather than two games scheduled simultaneously every other evening.  My fiance might disagree - we do have a lot of episodes of The Voice to catch up on, after all - but hopefully going forward the NBA and NHL scheduling departments will coordinate a bit more openly.

First Round Flame Out

It's Game Five of the first round of the NBA Playoffs.  Your team is down 3-1, but they're returning home for a critical match-up and the chance to get back into the series with a W.  Your home turf is not only in the middle of one of the world's greatest basketball markets, but your team plays in a brand new building in front of fans that, until last week, had never tasted NBA post-season action.  And, if you're the Brooklyn Nets fan base, you somehow manage to pack the Barclays Center to the brim but forget all of your energy and passion at home.

When I got the opportunity to attend my first Brooklyn Nets game for Game Five of their first round match-up against Chicago (somehow, I failed to make it to any of the team's 41 regular season games), I jumped on it.  Despite a 3-1 series deficit, I was anticipating a raucous crowd - a Game Five win (which the Nets ended up getting) would put them a road win away from a very winnable Game Seven back at Barclays.  I got to the arena around 20 minutes prior to tip and was impressed to see a mostly black-clad crowd - given the Nets newness in the market, I was expecting a lot more Bulls fans.  After taking in the fan wardrobe, however, the long list of disappointments sank in.

First, the arena was virtually empty at tip-off.  By the time the first quarter was winding down there were people in almost every seat - it was clearly a sell-out - but people were arriving super late. With transportation to the Barclays Center ultra-convenient and logistics at security and Will Call pretty sound, I have to blame the Nets fans on this one.  While I'm sure a lot of Brooklyn-dwelling Nets fans have the typical hipster "too cool for school" attitude (stereotype much?), this is the playoffs - you just have to show up on time.  Even when the fans did sit down, they were very quiet.  While the game was close and exciting throughout, the fans didn't get loud until the last few minutes of the fourth, when the game was all but won by the Nets.  What kind of fans aren't energetic until after a victory is secured?

The Barclays Center looked great - but sounded empty - on Monday night.

Some of this can be explained by the fact that the Nets are new to town - typically, a new team doesn't make the playoffs in its first year (either because it's an expansion franchise or because the relocated team is terrible, like Oklahoma City in its first season), so the fans have a few seasons to get into it before they head to the post-season.  But given how much hype there has been around Brooklyn basketball for years now, the Game Five showing was very disappointing.  If the Nets can manage to win Game Six in Chicago (no small task), their fans better come out a lot stronger for Game Seven if they want to create any kind of home court advantage.  

Power to the People

Unlike a baseball or a football game, where you really need to be sitting in the stands with the "real people" to properly experience the game, basketball games are typically awesome from inside a luxury suite.  The arenas are much smaller, so well-placed luxury seating (most relatively modern areas have their suites located in between the lower and upper bowls) combined an excellent vantage point with amenities including food, drinks, television and comfortable seats.  When I found out that my first visit to Boston's TD Garden would be in a luxury box for a mid-week game against the Golden State Warriors, I was excited and knew that I'd have a great view of the game (see below).

Boston's TD Garden isn't filled with the corporate-types you find at New York's MSG.

As a New Yorker, I've been trained to hate everything related to Boston sports.  That being said, I have to give it to the Celtics fans - despite the team's relative struggles on the court this season and the loss of the team's most-exciting player (Rajon Rondo) to injury, the TD Garden crowd was every bit as loud and passionate as any mid-week crowd for a Knicks game at MSG.  While the stands during a Knicks game are filled with tie-wearing corporate types coming straight from the office, the Celtics crowd was way more blue-collar.  Even on the suite level, it was hard to find people that looked like they have come to TD Garden directly from work, and I felt out of place in a suit and tie.

The vast majority of fans were wearing Celtics gear and were shockingly vocal, and when the Celtics made a push in the fourth quarter to put the game out of reach, the noise level was quite impressive.  Perhaps I shouldn't have been so surprised - given the tradition and greatness associated with Celtics basketball, it makes sense that the Boston faithful would turn out in droves no matter how well (or poorly) the Celts are playing.  Add in the fact that, even without Rondo, Boston's roster features two of the most popular players in the NBA (Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce), and all of the green-and-white jerseys make a lot more sense.

Overall, I liked TD Garden.  While it was a relatively generic NBA arena, it certainly does the job.  Like many newer NBA arenas, including Brooklyn's Barclays Center, it's very steep, so the upper level seats still feel right on top of the court.  I also liked the way the arena is located directly adjacent to a metro station (much like MSG), providing relatively easy access from anywhere in the city.  While there was nothing especially "Boston-ish" about the building or the luxury seating areas - most the the amenities and offerings seemed pretty generic - TD Garden seemed to be yet another example of a well-designed, highly functioning NBA venue.      

Can't We All Just Get Along?

I got up early this morning to catch an Amtrak train to Boston, so instead of my typical morning routine (a quick shower, shave and directly off to work) I got up extra-early to ensure that I wouldn't leave anything to chance timing-wise.  Naturally, I had some extra time before I had to head off to Penn Station and decided to flip on the local news.  I was shocked to see the local sports anchor transition to highlights of a regular season NBA game between Golden State and Indiana, and assumed that an incredible feat of athleticism must have occurred in order to justify such unexpected local media coverage.  I was disappointed to see, however, that the only reason the game made the local New York-area news was because of a fight that broke out between David Lee of the Warriors and Roy Hibbert of the Pacers.

The fight, which threatened to spill into the crowd and potentially put courtside ticket holders in harm's way, is thankfully a rare occurrence in the modern NBA, so based on its rareness you can argue that the additional media coverage is justified.  And while you'd think that the NBA likes the idea of New York residents getting exposed to highlights from a Pacers game - expanding its reach from the SportsCenter crowd and touching a broader audience that potentially includes casual basketball fans - it's not clear if footage of an almost-brawl is good or bad for the league.  While on one hand the increased exposure is great, promoting the fight potentially cheapens the league's brand and might imply that Lee and Hibbert's antics were more entertaining than the game itself.

  The fight between the Warriors and Pacers threatened to spill into the Bankers Life Fieldhouse stands.

As a fan of the NBA and a lover of professional basketball, I'd rather not have seen any highlights from this game than see it covered because of the fight.  The scuffle marred what was otherwise an entertaining game between two of the NBA's better teams (coming into the game both were 10+ games over .500), and takes away from the season-long accomplishments of Hibbert and Lee, two of the league's better big men.  Part of the blame certainly lies with the players, who allowed their emotions to get the best of them and shifted the focus from playing to brawling.  I believe that more of the culpability, however, lies with the fans for showing more interest in video of the fight than in video of the rest of the game.  While I can't blame the media for giving the people what they want, I can blame the people for wanting it.

Me, Tobey and Leo

For me, the 2012-13 NBA season started out with a bang - if you recall, I sat just a few rows behind the court for the Knicks home opener versus the Miami Heat, just feet from Justin Tuck, Mary J. Blige and a host of other New York-area celebrities.  On Thursday evening I once again got to see LeBron James and Dwyane Wade play on the road, this time at Staples Center against the Los Angeles Lakers.  Much like my opening night experience at Madison Square Garden, Thursday night's game was filled with celebrity sightings and top-notch service - this time with an added dash of Hollywood flair.

My idea of "dinner" at a sporting event is grabbing a couple of hot dogs and sodas and eating them at your seats while you watch pregame warmups.  On Thursday night, however, I started my Lakers game experience with a full sit-down dinner at the Lexus Club, Staples Center's exclusive arena club featuring both a full buffet and an extensive menu of a la carte choices.  The sashimi and cocktails I ate were a far cry from the franks and Cokes that I've become accustomed to - sort of a welcome "when in Rome" situation that really got the evening off on the right foot.  From the Lexus Club I made my way to my seat in Row A in Section 111, just feet from the TNT broadcasters and the celebrities sitting courtside.  That's when the real excitement began.

When I got to my seat just after tip-off (normally not one to miss the official start of a game, the Lexus Club dinner ran just a bit long), the four chairs to my right were unoccupied.  Within minutes, a group of men came walking down the aisle approaching the seats.  I didn't recognize two of the four guys, but the other two just happened to be Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio.  For the rest of the game, I sat inches from two of Hollywood's biggest stars, blatantly eavesdropping on their conversations and glancing at them out of the corner of my eye.  From my seat, I also had clear (albeit farther away) looks at Mark Wahlberg, Jack Nicholson (of course), Hillary Duff and Penny Marshall, among others.  The people-watching was so distracting that LeBron's final stat line of 39 points came as a shock to me - while spending so much time trying to take in my surroundings, I somehow lost sight of what was going on in the game.

Yours truly was sitting to the left of the guy in the Dodgers hat.

The other particularly cool part of the Lakers vs. Heat experience was the access to the Chairman's Room, a lounge located in the tunnels of the Staples Center where celebrities hang out during halftime and after the game.  Physically, the Chairman's Room is just a small room with a bar and a few bowls of nuts and popcorn lying around - one of the least spectacular places in the otherwise-impressive arena.  Given the fact that the Room is the place where the "Who's Who" of Lakers fans hangs out during games, there was something special about grabbing a postgame beer there.  During a night that was more about the people watching the game than the athletes playing in it, the Chairman's Room access was the perfect way to end an entertaining Heat victory.  

Never Had A Chance

Merry Christmas, readers!  I'll be spending the holiday watching the excellent schedule of NBA games on ESPN and ABC, a relatively new Christmas Day tradition that I'm a huge fan of.  Just like the NFL has left its mark on Thanksgiving and NCAA football (and, when there's a season, the NHL) have taken over New Year's Day, the NBA has done a great job of branding itself as Christmas's sport.  And unlike the NFL, the NBA has stacked its holiday game lineup with its best matchups and most popular teams, so I can catch Boston at Brooklyn, Oklahoma City at Miami and, most importantly, New York at the Los Angeles Lakers.  To get in the NBA holiday spirit, I spent Friday night at Madison Square Garden for Knicks versus Bulls, a highly anticipated matchup between two of the Eastern Conference's better teams.  Unfortunately, some questionable refereeing and sloppy early play from the Knicks effectively ended the game before it even started.

After the National Anthem ended, the game was effectively over.

Madison Square garden is known for having a fantastic atmosphere.  From Celebrity Row to the upper levels, Knicks fans are loud and energetic even when the team is struggling.  With the team on a roll early in 2012-13, the crowd has been particularly passionate; gone are the days of the mid-2000s when a Knicks vs. Bulls game would bring thousands of red-jersey-clad Chicago fans into MSG.  This season, there's only one way to knock Knicks fans out of a game - by putting them in a ~20 point first half hole.  The Knicks started out Friday's game ice cold from the floor, missing virtually every shot in the first quarter and falling behind 14-2 just minutes into the game.  But despite their offensive woes and a number of questionable calls / no-calls, the team trailed by only seven after the first quarter.  That's when the refs decided to take over the game.

I don't like to criticize officials - recall that, before I eventually ripped them apart, I stood by the NFL's replacement referees long after most people turned on them.  Refereeing a professional football or basketball game must be incredibly difficult - the game moves very quickly, there are a ton of calls to memorize and any hesitation leads to instant criticism from players, coaches, fans and commentators.  Despite these challenges, a professional referee has two critical jobs that stand above all others - to call the game evenly and consistently on both sides and to maintain control of the game.  While it's hard to tell if the refs accomplished the former on Friday night (Knicks players, coaches and fans would argue that virtually every call went to Chicago, but obviously their opinions are biased), after 50 personal fouls, nine technicals and four ejections it became clear that the officials took the game away from the fans.

It's been said before: Fans come to games to watch players play, not to watch referees ref.  By allowing the players to reach the boiling point where the game becomes more about complaining than about playing, the officials failed to do their job.  Knicks fans came to MSG expecting an exciting and entertaining game, but were forced to watch three of the team's best players (J.R. Smith, Carmelo Anthony and Tyson Chandler) get kicked out of the game.  Despite a furious comeback led by Jason Kidd, Raymond Felton and Chris Copeland (among a host of other bench players), the fans never really got into the game.  Thanks to the refs, they never really had the chance to enjoy what should have been an entertaining holiday weekend matchup.    

There's an "I" in "Lin," But Not In "Team"

After last night's thrilling come-from-behind victory in Brooklyn I'll admit that I'm a little Knicks-crazy this week, so forgive me if this post comes off as a bit more biased than what you're used to.  Since the 2012-13 NBA season started, the Knicks have been grabbing sports media headlines with their consistently solid play, pair of 20-point victories over defending champion Miami and the emergence of Carmelo Anthony as a legitimate MVP candidate.  With Amar'e Stoudemire set to return before the end of the calendar year and join an already-deep rotation that features Anthony, reigning Defensive MVP Tyson Chandler, All Star-worthy PG Raymond Felton and a cast of other veteran role players (not to mention second year guard Iman Shumpert, also set to return from injury later this season), the Knicks seem poised to improve on last year's first round playoff exit at the hands of the Heat.  There's a positive energy around New York basketball that the Nets' move to Brooklyn has done nothing to slow down, and it seems like the Knicks are once again the talk of the town.

Last year's playoff run was, of course, largely thanks to the admittedly superb play of Jeremy Lin, once an obscure point guard out of Harvard who transformed into a household name (and a brand) virtually overnight.  Since New York refused to match Houston's offer to Lin over the summer, the Knicks and Lin have headed in completely opposite directions.  While the Knicks, at 16-5, sit atop the Eastern Conference with Lin's backup, Felton, leading the offense, Linsanity has struggled in his first year with the Rockets. His stats are way down from the ones he was putting up with the Knicks last January, and as a result the new look Rockets have struggled and currently sit at  9-11, 10th place in the West and currently outside the playoff bubble.  When Lin went off for a Linsanity-esque 38 points and 7 assists against San Antonio on Monday, the sports world barely took notice.  More importantly, Houston still lost to the Spurs at home.

When the Knicks let Lin walk in July, everyone was talking about how New York was making a huge mistake.  After all, Lin had become the new face of the Knicks franchise, and Lin supporters argued that the point guard's value to the team far exceeded what the Knicks would have to pay to retain him (even after including the Luxury Tax implications).  What are those supporters saying now?  Clearly hindsight is 20/20, and there was so way to know for sure that Lin would regress dramatically in 2012-13 and that a guy like Felton would drastically outperform him - in the article I linked to above, ESPN's Ian O'Connor wrote in July that "there's no good reason to believe that Lin, a better player than Felton last year, won't be a better player than Felton next year and beyond."  But even if O'Connor was right - maybe the Knicks did luck into the Felton over Lin decision when the former became too expensive - the fact remains that the Knicks can always make another Jeremy Lin, but Jeremy Lin doesn't make the Knicks.

Fast forward to today and take note of the fact that Knicks fans are falling for the 2012-13 roster, including Lin's replacements (Felton, Jason Kidd and Pablo Prigioni).  While the excitement around those three doesn't match last season's Linsanity craze, you won't find a Knicks fan who wants to talk about how much he misses Jeremy Lin or about how badly the Knicks need to bring Lin back.  If the Knicks are winning, New York basketball fans will rally around the players helping to grab the victories.  Last year, it was Lin (and admittedly it all happened in an unprecedented way).  This year it's Carmelo, Felton, Chandler and guys like Kidd, Steve Novak and Rasheed Wallace.  At the same time Lin is struggling in Houston, both on the court and with fans who have fallen in love with the newly-acquired James Harden and view the Lin signing as more of an afterthought.  I still wish Lin the best and hope things turn out well for him over his next three years in Houston, but as of now we can say that no player - not even Lin - is more important to the Knicks than the Knicks are to that player. 

What Changed for Mike Brown?

On Friday, the Los Angeles Lakers fired head coach Mike Brown after the team's 1-4 start to the 2012-13 season.  The Lakers were all over the NBA headlines this offseason, from the acquisitions of high-profile superstars Dwight Howard and Steve Nash to the instillation of a new Princeton offense.  Of course, its nothing new for head coaches to be fired in the midst of a disappointing season - the Knicks 2011-12 season, for example, was partially marked by the firing of Mike D'Antoni (currently a candidate for the Lakers vacancy) and the promotion of assistant coach Mike Woodson.  From that perspective, I have no problems with the Lakers dumping Brown.  My question, however, is: Why now?

I'm confused too, Mike Brown.

Mike Brown has been an NBA coach since 2005-06, when he took the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Eastern Conference semifinals.  Since then, his career has been marked by a series of "almosts" and "could have beens."  His Cavs teams finished either first or second in the Central Division in each of his five years with the team, but only once reached the NBA Finals and never won the title despite having a roster that included arguably the best player in the NBA.  Last year with the Lakers, Brown took Kobe and Co. to the Western Conference semis, but couldn't get past the Oklahoma City Thunder.  Basically, after getting half a dozen seasons to prove himself, Mike Brown is who we thought he was (as Dennis Green might say) - a coach good enough to get you to the playoffs, but no further.  I'm pretty sure that Mike Brown is the same coach today as he was this past summer, when the Lakers decided to bring him back for this season to lead the newly revamped Lake Show.

If Brown was good enough for the Lakers a month ago, what's changed in the last few weeks that lead the Buss family to change their minds about Brown?  I find it almost impossible to believe that it was the team's 1-4 start - firing a head coach based on a five game sample size would be an extremely shortsighted panic move that I refuse the believe a franchise like the Lakers are capable of committing.  Yes, the Lakers are 1-4, but so what?  The Denver Nuggets - a team many expect to contend in the Western Conference this year - started the year with three consecutive disappointing losses.  Since then, they've won four straight and have people talking about them as a force to be reckoned with.  The NBA season is long, and the Buss family has been around long enough to know that a rough five game stretch - especially for a team bringing in a bunch of new players and instilling a new offense - means very little.  So no, I don't buy the team's slow start as a rationale for Brown's firing.

So assuming Los Angeles knew what Brown was about way before this season started, and assuming that they're not overreacting to a slow first two weeks, why did the team make this move on Friday?  Some are arguing that its so they could pursue either Phil Jackson or Jerry Sloan, but those two legendary coaches are no more available now than they were over the summer.  I don't think Mike Brown is a particularly good coach and don't think he was ever a great fit for the Lakers, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's more true now than it was just a few weeks ago.  I think the Lakers will be competitive with whomever they bring in to run the ship (yes, even with D'Antoni), but it's a shame to think about what they could have been if they used the offseason to integrate a new coach instead of making a strange move in mid-November.

Enjoy It While You Can

Yesterday, I came across a great NBA-related article on Grantland entitled "The 5 Percent Theory: Why NBA teams shouldn't time their rise to avoid a juggernaut. Plus, 10 great things about the season so far."  The article, written by columnist Zach Lowe, argues that "If you have some pieces, you're almost there, and if you're almost there, you go for it — even if the chances of toppling a superpower are slim."  He backs his assertion up with comments from (among others) highly-respected Houston GM Daryl Morey and Dallas owner Mark Cuban, the latter of which compiled a championship-winning roster in 2011 even though everyone said that the Mavericks had no chance of toppling the Lakers, Celtics or Heat.  Given how much luck and injuries play into the run to an NBA title, I strongly agree with Lowe - just because the Heat seem dominant and the Lakers and Thunder could be scary doesn't mean that the next set of teams should be treading water until LeBron and Wade are pulled apart and Kobe retires.

I thought about this article a lot in the context of the start that my beloved New York Knicks have had to the 2012-13 NBA season.  While many fans are (perhaps overly) thrilled with the team's 3-0 record and, in particular, its impressive and inspired opening night victory over Miami, I've heard a ton of naysayers out there arguing that the Knicks are wasting their time and money on veterans like Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby and Jason Kidd when they should be building towards a future that doesn't include Heat and Lakers rosters headlined by any sort of "Big Three."  These people argue that the Knicks are fooling themselves by thinking they have any chance to compete this year, and as such shouldn't try to do so.  This argument relies on the logic that the only goal a team should have going into an NBA season is to win a championship.  Is that the right way to look at it, though?

As a fan of the Braves - a team that consistently stays competitive but rarely wins it all - I might be biased here, but I don't believe in a championship-or-bust philosophy.  True, there's nothing better than seeing your team take home the trophy - I still remember the Braves 1995 World Series victory like it was yesterday, and the two Super Bowls that the Giants have captured this decade sit at the top of my Best Sports Moments list.  But as good as those highs are, the lows associated with following a truly uncompetitive team can be extremely painful - particularly when you feel like your team's ownership and management are willing to tolerate the losing.  I agree with Zach Lowe - even if your team has just a 5% chance to capturing a title this season, you owe it to your fans and players to go for it.

Do I think the Knicks are going to win the NBA title this season?  No, I don't.  But do I think that, with a core of Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler and Amar'e Stoudemire and a surrounding cast comprised of useful veterans, the Knicks are at least in the conversation?  Sure, why not!  And as such, I applaud their moves to go get some veterans with playoff experience who can add leadership and play key roles this season without mortgaging the team's future.  Just as I'll never understand why the Washington Nationals shut down Stephen Strasburg to preserve their chance at future World Series titles when they could have won a World Series with him this year, I don't understand the argument that the Knicks should lay low and let the Heat and Lakers battle for the 2013 title.  I advise all Knicks fans to give this new roster (and coach Mike Woodson) a chance, and enjoy the good start while you can.

Opening Night on Celebrity Row

Thanks to a generous last-minute invite from a friend I had fantastic third row seats to the New York Knicks home opener, 104-84 drubbing of the defending NBA champion Miami Heat.  Over the years I've sat all over Madison Square Garden, but had never been this close to the court for an NBA game before (I once sat courtside for a New York Liberty WNBA game, back when the team was still playing at MSG).  In addition to providing an excellent view of the game, the first few rows at the Garden afford fans the opportunity to people-watch, get your face on TV and stare at celebrities.  While the surrounding atmosphere can be somewhat distracting - sometimes you forget that you're at a basketball game - it's a unique way to take in a sporting event.

As I looked around MSG's Section 2, I assumed that everyone I saw was either super-rich, someone famous that I just couldn't recognize out of context, or both.  After some not-so-discrete staring, I was able to point out hip-hop artist Mary J. Blige (sitting two rows directly in front of us) and New York Giants defensive end Justin Tuck.  Everyone in our section, though - not just the celebrities - stuck out from the typical basketball fan in one way or another.  Rather than Knicks jerseys and hoodies, the guys were wearing blazers and ties while their dates wore leather pants, stilettos and, in one instance, a see-through black tank top.  The people holding beers were heavily outnumbered by those holding cocktails, and people stared at me when I got out of my seat to cheer after a big Raymond Felton three-pointer.

When you sit in the cheap seats, you spend a lot of time starting at the Jumbotron watching other people shown on the big screen.  When you sit in the third row, you are one of those people.  At one point in the second quarter I was featured prominently on the Jumbotron - another friend at the game texted me to let me know he recognized me - and toward the end of the game I was spotted on TV during the MSG broadcast (see if you can spot me Where's Waldo-style in the photo below).  Along with all of the media exposure comes a downside, however - camera men constantly blocking your view and Knicks staffers camped out in the aisles ready to pounce on the next available photo opportunity.

    Can you find me?  Hint: Look all the way to the right.

Overall, I really enjoyed my experience rubbing elbows with the one percent in MSG's floor seats.  What better way to take in the Knicks season opener against the star-studded Heat than sitting alongside the likes of Mary J. Blige and Justin Tuck?  Going forward, I'll have no problem heading back up to the higher levels to cheer with the "real" fans - but for Friday night there was no place that I'd rather have been.

Banding Together

First off, I want to start this post by apologizing for being a tad delinquent on my blogging responsibilities lately - between work and travel, it's been hard to find time to write something sophisticated and thoughtful enough for my loyal reader base.  I feel especially bad about this in light of all of the positive feedback I've received recently - within the past couple of weeks, many of you have contacted me to say how much you enjoy Caught Looking - many of whom I had no idea had ever read a post.  As always, I very much appreciate your readership, and vow to be better about posting now that things have slowed down a bit.  Keep the suggestions (and praise) coming!

Speaking of work and travel, I finally made my first trip to Portland this week for a workshop.  While I didn't get to go to any sporting events while I was there - the Trail Blazers are obviously in the middle of the off-season and the MLS's Timbers didn't have any home games - I was still impressed by the sports-related atmosphere of Oregon's largest city.  Despite the city's extremely notable hippie vibe, the city showed a strong passion for the local sports teams wherever you looked.  I saw University of Oregon and Oregon State gear everywhere, and everyone from the area is quick to gush about their love for the Blazers.  Even the Timbers have gotten a ton of love - the team has a 6,000 person supporter group that shows up for every home game, and their battle with the Seattle Sounders is quickly emerging as one of the country's most underrated professional sports rivalries.

I think a lot of the surprisingly passionate team sports atmosphere in the Pacific Northwest can be attributed to the fact that the region has been largely neglected by the rest of the sports-loving country.  Portland has just one team in the Big Four leagues despite periodically expressing interest in an MLB franchise.  Seattle has two teams (the Seahawks and the Mariners), but is most often associated with losing the Sonics to Oklahoma City a few years ago.  People forget that Vancouver, too, lost its NBA franchise to Memphis, and now hosts only an NHL team.  The neglect by the pro sports leagues seems to fuel the area's passion for the teams it does have, however; Portland understand how lucky it is to have an NBA franchise after having watched two neighboring cities lose theirs within a decade.  This is particularly surprising in light of the fact that the team has given its fans every reason to jump ship over the past decade (bad player behavior, on-court underachievement, etc.).  Still, the fans continue to pack the Rose Garden virtually every night and season ticket holders continue to renew.

As a result, the Pacific Northwest has also truly embraced a league that the rest of the nation has been slow to adopt - the MLS.  Last year I helped write a Sports Marketing paper on the popularity of Major League Soccer in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver (available upon request), but going to Portland and seeing the love for the green-and-yellow-clad Timbers first-hand helped me understand the positive impact that soccer has had on the area.  Cities like New York, Houston and Chicago take their MLS teams for granted, despite the league's efforts to built beautiful, new, soccer-specific stadiums to improve the fan experience.  In Portland, though, the locals are honored to have teams that are proud to call the Pacific Northwest home.  Throw in the fact that the MLS is now the only league that has teams in Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, and you've got the recipe for a surprisingly strong three-team rivalry.

Portland certainly loves the Timbers.

Not Yet Ready to Rumble

As many professional sports team as there are in New York, I would argue that there are no real New York sports rivalries.  The Mets and the Yankees are in separate leagues, so they don't compete head-to-head often enough to really be considered rivals (the 2000 World Series not withstanding).  The same can be said of the Giants and the Jets, who have never met in the Super Bowl and play each other in the regular season just once every four seasons.  While the Rangers, Devils and Islanders compete head to head for the NHL's Atlantic Division crown every year, I don't consider New York hockey to be a true rivalry, either.  With three teams it's hard to create real drama on a yearly basis, and the Rangers vs. Islanders rivalry has been dulled by the fact that the Isles haven't been competitive in a decade.

This is why I'm so excited about the prospect of a true New York NBA rivalry between the Knicks and the newly relocated Brooklyn Nets.  While it still remains to be seen if the Nets can drum up enough of a fan base to make Knicks vs. Nets close to a 50/50 proposition, I like what I'm seeing so far.  The Nets will open the 2012-13 season, and the brand new Barclays Center, with a game against the Knicks on November 1, and the trash talk between the two franchises has already begun.  Nets president Brett Yormark requested the Knicks as his team's first home opponent, apparently not worried about having his new arena taken over by the blue-and-orange-clad Knicks faithful.  Later in the week, Brooklyn borough president Marty Markowitz taunted the Knicks and their fans by saying: "It won't be long before a championship banner so elusive for the Knicks over the past forty years will be hanging in its rightful place from the rafters at Barclays Center."

Yormark was certainly right last week when he said that "[The Nets] are now part of the conversation, and I can’t say [they] were in New Jersey.”  Part of the talk will revolve around the Nets new arena, which I had the opportunity to take a tour of this past Thursday afternoon.  With just over two months to go before the arena officially opens (to host a preseason NHL game between the Islanders and the Devils, actually), the Barclays Center still has a long way to go before being NBA game ready (see the photo, below).  But while there's still a lot of construction left to go, it's already clear that the incredible new Brooklyn arena - combined with the sure-to-be-awesome renovations currently going on at Madison Square Garden - will only add to the Knicks-Nets rivalry.

While it still needs work, it's clear that the Barclays Center is going to be a great venue.

Barclays is going to have a lot of elements that MSG won't, including a glass-walled practice court that fans can look directly into, an open area behind one of the baskets (or, in the case of a concert, behind the stage) that allows fans to get a great glimpse of the playing surface immediately after walking into the arena, and subway access from nine subway lines (MSG is accessible from only six).  As a Knicks fan, I actually hope that Manhattanites don't overtake Barclays this season and give a true Brooklyn-based Nets fan base the chance to develop.  I'm excited about the prospect of having a real New York-area rivalry to debate - something I haven't really had since Islanders vs. Rangers was actually a thing back in the 1990s.

Viva Las Vegas?

Yesterday I returned from a three-day business trip to Las Vegas, Nevada.  Naturally, much of the conversation there revolved around whether or not the city should have some sort of professional major league sports team.  Given that Sin City is, according to Wikipedia, the 31st largest city in the United States (making it larger than a number of pro sports cities including Sacramento, Kansas City and Buffalo) and one of our country's entertainment capitals, many find it surprising that one of the major leagues hasn't expanded to Vegas.  After yet another visit to the city, however, I remain glad that Vegas sports has been limited to UNLV, the Las Vegas Motor Speedway and the Las Vegas 51s of the Pacific Coast League.

Most opponents of professional sports in Las Vegas base their arguments around gambling, and talk about how a Vegas-based team would be more prone to game fixing, point shaving or other unethical behavior.  For me, however, this isn't too much of a concern.  At this point in the evolutionary cycles of gambling and sports, if players, coaches or referees wanted to tamper with an otherwise fair game, they don't need to be in Las Vegas to do it.  So, if I'm not worried about the gambling, why don't I want a pro team located down the road from the Strip?  More than anything, I just don't think a team based in Las Vegas would be financially successful.

An NBA arena on the Las Vegas Strip?  Don't count on it.

Las Vegas is all about glitz and glamour, and the city is filled with forms of entertainment that deliver along those lines.  A professional baseball team isn't going to do the trick for most of Vegas's ~40 million annual visitors.  We all know by now that professional hockey outside of the NHL's core markets doesn't really work, and there's no reason that the cash-rich NFL would force a team into Las Vegas (especially when Los Angeles is still open).  If Vegas were to get a team it would have to be an attention-starved NBA franchise (picture Semi-Pro's "Love Me Sexy"-singing Flint Tropics ABA team).  Even with a few NBA franchises potentially looking to relocate I wouldn't recommend Sin City, however.

First, there's too much competition from other forms of entertainment.  Every hotel and casino on the Strip offers concerts and shows nightly, so you can't treat Las Vegas as a typical one-sport NBA city like San Antonio or Sacramento.  Second, so many of the people roaming the Strip are tourists, making season ticket sales very hard to come by.  NBA teams use season tickets to stabilize annual revenues and build a loyal fan base, and Las Vegas lacks a large pool of upper class residents.  Third, other than casinos there aren't a ton of large companies based in the area, which could make sponsorships hard to sell.  Tack on concerns about gambling, all of the distractions for the players and other ethical concerns, and a professional sports team in Las Vegas seems like a disaster in the making.

This isn't to say, however, that I don't think sports have a place in the city.  One thing that Las Vegas does incredibly well is large events - conventions, for example, drive tons of business for the city.  With the right venue(s) in place, I see no reason why Vegas couldn't host a Super Bowl some day.  The city hosted the 2007 NBA All Star game and holds an annual NASCAR race, so it's already identified itself as a potential host for big time sporting events, and the Super Bowl is 10% game and 90% party anyway.  For large, one-off sporting events, I'm all for giving Las Vegas a shot.  For an NBA team that would have to play there more than 40 nights a year, though, I just don't see it happening.

Let Him Go

Lost in all of the media coverage of the Jeremy Lin saga has been restricted free agent Nicolas Batum's negotiations with the Portland Trail Blazers and the Minnesota Timberwolves.  While every NBA-related article over the weekend seemed to debate whether or not the Knicks should bring back Lin (and with the recent acquisition of Raymond Felton from Portland, it appears that they won't), but only occassionally have I heard anyone weighing in on what the Blazers should do about Batum.  Whereas Lin has always seemed intent on exploring the free agency market and finding the best deal out there (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that), Batum is perhaps the only NBA player legitimately excited about playing in Minneapolis.

To get you up to speed, Batum is a talented 23-year-old forward out of France who has spent the last four seasons in Portland, averaging a solid 13.9 points and 4.6 rebounds per game this past season.  Because he's a restricted free agent, the Trail Blazers can match any offer that another team gives him, and Portland seems intent on bringing Batum back at all costs.  However, Batum wants out of Portland and, for some reason, has identified Minnesota as his preferred next team.  According to ESPN, Batum "was unhappy with how he was being used in Portland and would much prefer to play under [Rick] Adelman and alongside [Kevin] Love and [Ricky] Rubio in Minnesota."

So, what should the Blazers do?  If they match the offer, they'll get Batum back for the (seemingly expensive) free agent market rate, but will have to deal with a disgruntled player who clearly has no interest in playing for the team.  If they grant his wish and let him go to the Timberwolves, they lose a very talented young player and receive no compensation in return.  The logical middle ground seems to orchestrate a sign-and-trade, where Portland would sign Batum and then trade him to Minnesota - this way, Batum gets to play for the Wolves and the Blazers get something for him.  According to ESPN, however, Portland seems unwilling to talk trade, even though "the Timberwolves have offered as many as three future first-round draft picks and even have dangled small forward Derrick Williams, the No. 2 pick in the 2011 draft."

I've watched the NBA for years, and during that time I've learned that there's arguably nothing more destructive than having a disgruntled player on your roster.  Given how unhappy Batum would be in Portland next season, and factoring in the rumor that Batum's $46 million deal is apparently "vastly more" than the Blazers think he's worth, I think Portland needs to drop the gloves and make the best out of this admittedly rough situation.  Portland knows a lot about unhappy, selfish players, and the team spent years moving away from the "Jail Blazers" reputation that it held years ago.  It's time for Portland to shift from combat mode into negotation mode and see what it can get for Batum.  There's no way that having Batum play for the Blazers next season makes any sense, and I hope Portland realizes that before it's too late.  After all, the clock is ticking.

Give Boston Some Credit

As a New Yorker, I really don't like anything about Boston.  As public transportation systems go, the T pales in comparison to the New York City subways.  The sites are pretty much all academic and remind me of my fifth grade overnight trip (which, admittedly, was a huge deal at the time).  Things close too early at night, the weather's too harsh and cold and, perhaps worst of all, you constantly run the risk of bumping into kids from Harvard or MIT.  Combine all of these factors with the fact that you're always surrounded by Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics fans, and it's pretty much the most miserable place on Earth for a New Yorker.  I mean, if you ask someone in Boston where to get a good bagel they'll send you to some place called Finagle a Bagel.  Seriously.  

Every once in a while, though, I have to give the city of Boston credit where credit is due. While Boston sports fans might be annoying, overconfident and speak with a ridiculous accent, they do love their teams. On Thursday night, with the Celtics getting crushed by 20+ by Miami, the Boston home crowd got a thunderous "Let's Go Celtics" chant going, energizing the team in preparation for Game 7 in Miami on Saturday night. As much as I love the Knicks and their fans, I can admit that Madison Square Garden would have been empty by this point in the game had New York been down 21 to LeBron & Co. Watch the video below and tell me it's not one of the more impressive fan-related things you've seen in a while.



Part of what makes the MLB, NBA and NHL playoffs great (as opposed to the NFL or NCAA basketball) is the series structure.  While the one-and-done nature of the NFL playoffs and March Madness is incredibly exciting, you don't get the opportunity for stuff like this in those sports.  In the NBA, one loss (usually) doesn't mean the end of the season, and it's up to the players to shake off an ugly loss (and Boston's Game 6 was certainly ugly) and get ready to win the next one.  Had I not seen the video above and only heard the final score, I would have said with confidence that the Celtics would get smacked around by the Heat in Game 7.  Now after seeing this?  I'm not so sure.

I spend a fair amount of time thinking about what players "owe" their fans.  At the end of the day, we all know sports is a business and that most of the athletes are playing more for the paycheck and the popularity than for their city or their fans.  The relationship between player and fan is one of employee and customer, and rarely much more.  But I think if I were sitting on the Celtics bench listening to this chant at the end of an utterly terrible game, I'd be really fired up for a chance at redemption in Game 7.  I don't know if the Celtics players will show up in force on Saturday night, but after seeing this video I'm pretty confident that the Celtics fans will.

Showing Love for San Antonio

I'm an American sports fan, so I say that I love teams with solid work ethics that make up for a lack of athleticism with smarts, effort and execution.  I'm an American sports fan, so I claim that I love seeing great athletes play their entire careers as a member of one team.  I'm an American sports fan, so I insist that I root for small market franchises and underdogs.  And I'm an American sports fan, so for some reason I don't want to see the San Antonio Spurs win the 2012 NBA Championship.

Like most sports fans I know, I'm unable to reconcile the first three of the above facts with the fourth.  After all, the Spurs are methodical and boring.  They lack the flash and sizzle of the Heat, the celebrated youth of the Thunder and the big city appeal of the Celtics.  Never mind that the Spurs are built on a foundation of everything we as American sports fans say we stand for - hard work, consistency and stability.  We claim to hate the way the NBA has turned into a league based around superstar athletes and slam dunks, yet we're hard pressed to find anyone rooting for San Antonio to take town younger, flashier and sexier Oklahoma City in the Western Conference Finals.

  San Antonio's "Big 3" isn't as heralded as either Miami's or Boston's.

Take a look at the Spurs' playoff roster.  It's a seemingly random mix of aging stars (Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker), undervalued young players who have been with the organization since they were drafted (James Anderson, DuJuan Blair, Kawhi Leonard, Tiago Splitter, Gary Neal) and veteran role players that have been kicked around the league (Matt Bonner, Boris Diaw, Stephen Jackson).  What's not to love about this team?  Other than Duncan, who was heralded since his time at Wake Forest, every guy on the roster was overlooked at some point in his career, some as recently as a year or two ago.  Why aren't we all fawning over these guys?  Why do we all want the Durant- and Westbrook- led Thunder to represent the West in the NBA Finals?

The Spurs are a sports mystery.  They represent everything we as sports fans always say we want in a champion, yet we'll root for pretty much anyone to beat them - this year it's Oklahoma City, but during the past decade it's been Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas and even Seattle.  Even as I write this, I have to admit that I want OKC to take Game 2 tonight and march closer to the NBA Finals.  If the San Antonio Spurs do win the 2012 NBA title, though, we'll have no choice but to remember them as one of the league's great dynasties.  The question is: Will we want to?  

Save Orlando from Shaq

For much of my life, I dreamed about being the General Manager of a professional sports team.  As recently as last summer, I had made career decisions based on the hopes of one day making draft choices, free agent signings and trades - this time one year ago I was getting ready to start a summer internship in Major League Baseball's Labor Relations Department and continue to pursue this dream.  As I learned more about the sacrifices required to become a professional sports GM, though, I quickly realized that the life wasn't for me.  In order for a non-former-pro-athlete to get a high ranking front office position, he has to sacrifice virtually every other aspect of his life - family, friends, compensation, etc.  In the end, I decided that I'd go a different route within the world of sports business.

People are constantly asking me why making it as a GM is so difficult.  After all, I'm smart, qualified and extremely knowledgable - aren't I exactly the kind of candidate that teams are looking for?  Shouldn't I be able to show my resume, go through a handful of interviews, walk away with a job as a director of basketball / baseball / football operations and be well on my way to being named General Manager in 10-25 years?  While I'd like to think this could be true, sadly it isn't meant to be.  And a large part of the reason why it isn't nearly that easy is because, despite everything we hear about Moneyball and Sabermetrics, former professional athletes with zero front office experience continue to take all of the good jobs.

This week, sources revealed that the Orlando Magic is considering Shaquille O'Neal for its vacant General Manager position, which became available when it fired Otis Smith earlier this week.  No, that isn't a misprint or an article from the Onion Sports Network - it's actually a "legitimate" news story. ESPN notes that, "if O'Neal were to be hired by the Magic, the organization likely would bring in a more experienced basketball executive to work alongside him."  Thus, hiring Shaq as Magic GM would have two negative effects on young and talented aspiring front office executives.  First, a GM job goes to a guy with zero qualifications.  Second, another senior position goes to an industry veteran, further hurting the growth prospects of talented junior executives in the Orlando organization.  Young executives are willing to take jobs that pay $30K per year in order to earn the right to some day have the opportunity to prove themselves in a decision-making role.  Instead, the Orlando job might go to a multi-millionaire with no business experience while dozens of more qualified candidates wait in the wings.

Get ready for a bunch of Shaq press conferences starting this summer.

I like Shaq.  As a player, he was a great ambassador for the sport of basketball and he continues to entertain fans as a TV personality.  He's funny, charismatic and understands the sport - basically, he's got the perfect job right now as an NBA TV analyst for TNT.  I still can't understand, however, how Orlando could hire him as General Manager, or why he'd even want to job.  All we hear about is how teams need to get smarter, embrace new decision-making processes and move away from the traditional approaches that have become stale.  Savvy GMs like Sam Presti in Oklahoma City and Daryl Morey in Houston have taken the league by storm - doesn't Orlando want to find the next young superstar GM who can turn the Magic into another small market contender?  By considering Shaq, the Magic is telling its fans that it doesn't take winning seriously.  Hopefully, the people will speak up and tell ownership that they want the GM decision based on meritocracy, not popularity.

One Horse Town

Earlier tonight, I watched Chesapeake Energy Arena erupt as the hometown Oklahoma City Thunder erased a late seven point deficit and defeated Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers 77-75.  Despite the low score, it was an exciting game to watch - back-and-forth action with numerous lead changes throughout - and through it all the OKC crowd was fantastic.  Dressed in white and blue matching T-shirts - each section alternated shirt color for a cool effect that I hadn't seen before - the Thunder faithful were desperate for their team to pull out the come-from-behind victory over the hated Lakers.  The Chesapeake Energy Arena atmosphere may be the best in the NBA, and a large part of the reason is that the Thunder are the only team in town.

As a New Yorker and as an NBA fan, I love the Knicks and consider Madison Square Garden among the best places to watch a basketball game.  But while MSG can be raucus and loud, it lacks the intensity and desperation associated with a fan base that lacks a backup plan.  When the Knicks falter and the NBA season ends, New Yorkers have Yankees or Mets baseball to enjoy and can soon start to focus on the Giants and Jets as they battle for a spot in the Super Bowl (or, the Giants do anyway).  In Oklahoma City, NBA basketball is the entire professional sports scene.  There might be Oklahoma Sooners football down the road in Norman, but once the Thunder season is over the state's professional sports scene doesn't pick up again until the NBA season restarts in the fall.

The Thunder faithful love team owner Clay Bennett, and for good reason.

In 2010, Bleacher Report ranked the top places to watch an NBA basketball game, and among the top ten were Oklahoma City, Portland, Sacramento and Salt Lake City.  What do these four metros have in common?  None of them have another professional sports team, so all of the city's rooting interest is poured into pro basketball.  Add in top ranked Indianapolis, a city with only one other professional franchise (the Colts), and you can see the correlation between great fan bases and fewer competing interests.  While it's great to live in New York and have nine local professional sports teams to follow, all of that choice fragments the market and makes each team's success seem less critical.  When you live in Oklahoma City and it's Thunder-or-bust, the fan base becomes much more rabid.  Plus, it's Oklahoma City - not only isn't there competition from other professional sports, there doesn't seem to be competition from anything. 

While I am quick to criticize the NBA for many things, market selection isn't one of them.  The league has realized that you don't need a massive market to have a successful and popular franchise - some of the league's most successful teams, both on and off the court, are located in one-team markets like San Antonio, Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City.  Unlike the NHL, which has taken the opposite approach (put teams in big markets whether they have any interest in hockey or not), the NBA's small market teams have managed to hold their own with the big boys.  When the Thunder finish off the Lakers some time next week, people in Los Angeles probably won't be too upset - after all, there are Dodgers games at Chavez Ravine all summer long.