The NBA just isn't what it used to be. While baseball has always been my favorite sport, basketball used to be my second-favorite by a wide margin. That was in the 90's, an era when my Bulls were winning titles and the other teams and players seemed more likable. Lest you think I was just a homer who enjoyed watching my team win, I still loved the NBA after Michael Jordan retired and the Bulls became a cellar-dweller. I followed the game religiously and enjoyed the Spurs' 1999 title run. At the time I didn't see my love of the NBA ever dying.

When we reached this current decade things began to change. Phil Jackson, the man at the Bulls' helm during their six championship runs in the 90's, signed on to coach the Lakers. The Lakers had been a good team throughout the previous decade, but they were never a serious title contender. I loved watching them get eliminated in the Playoffs every year, as they were more style than substance. That all changed under Jackson. The Lakers dominated their way to a 67-15 record, Shaquille O'Neal won the MVP and they could no longer be taken lightly going into the Second Season.

There was some hope that the Lakers would lose in the Playoffs, as the Spurs had beaten them in three of their four meetings that year. If the Spurs had gotten past the First Round they would've had the chance to upset them in the Semifinals. Unfortunately, Tim Duncan missed the Playoffs due to injury, leaving the Suns as easy fodder for the Lakers. The Blazers took them to seven games in the Conference Finals, and had a 15-point lead in the 4th Quarter of Game 7. The Blazers suddenly went cold, and the Lakers staged a comeback that won them the West. Despite their impressive record it always seemed like the Lakers were dodging bullets. The longsuffering Pacers, making their first NBA Finals appearance, were the Lakers' opponent in the ultimate round. I badly wanted those Pacers to win the title, but they came up short despite a good effort. I was unhappy about the Lakers winning the 2000 NBA Championship, but I accepted it because I knew that you can't always see the teams you like win. Still, it seemed like things worked out too perfectly for the Lakers, and the NBA now had another marketable team for all the bandwagoners to root for. My life as a fan would never be the same.

In 2001 the Lakers weren't quite as dominant during the regular season, which gave me some hope that the media favorites wouldn't overshadow everything this time. Then the unexpected happened. The Lakers finished the season with eight straight wins and wouldn't lose again until Game 1 of the NBA Finals. I couldn't believe it when they swept both the Kings and the Spurs in the Playoffs, as those teams should've at least put up good fights. Allen Iverson, that year's MVP, led the 76ers past the more well-balanced Bucks in the Eastern Conference Finals with David Stern visibly rooting for Philly in the stands. As the 76ers were basically Iverson and a bunch of scrubs, the Lakers disposed of them in five games in the Finals. Instead of being nipped in the bud, the hype surrounding the purple and gold only grew.

2002 was the year things could've been different. The Kings, a team I had pulled for on the side for several years, had the best record in the NBA and looked like they could at last win the title. The Lakers and Kings met in the Conference Finals. It was a close, hard-fought series that will be remembered most for the fact that the Kings, holding a 3-2 series lead, were called for a bunch of questionable fouls in the 4th Quarter of Game 6 that allowed the Lakers to force Game 7. After that I couldn't bring myself to watch the seventh game, because I knew what the outcome would be. I didn't bother to watch the Finals either, because I knew there was no chance of the Eastern Conference Champion Nets beating the Lakers. The knowledge that the Lakers had "three-peated" disgusted me, since I didn't think they were anywhere near as good as the NBA's past three-peaters. The Lakers' dominance seemed to be a result more of luck and favorable calls than true greatness. It was hard to watch.

In 2003 the Lakers struggled, and their run finally ended when the Spurs beat them in the Semifinals. Those same Spurs ended up facing the Nets in the Finals. I was rooting for the Nets, but just like the year before they were no match for the West's representative. The Spurs won their second NBA Championship, and while they were a deserving team the result didn't excite me. At the very least though, I was glad that the title was won by a classy group of players.

In 2004 things briefly started looking up. The situation appeared bleak early on when the Lakers added two veteran stars in Gary Payton and Karl Malone. The plan was that they'd have a memorable title-winning one-year run together. While they didn't dominate as much as some people expected them to, they managed to win the West. Along the way they upset the Spurs in the Semifinals (aided by a miraculous Derek Fisher buzzer-beater) and took down the injury-hobbled Timberwolves in the Conference Finals. Their Finals opponent was the Pistons, a team with no big-name stars that got by mainly on tough defense and a balanced attack. Most people assumed that the Lakers would romp to another title, but the Pistons had other plans. The tenacious team from the Motor City thoroughly outplayed the Lakers in the Finals and exposed them as a selfish, overrated group. To me, the Pistons' defeat of the Lakers stands as the single greatest NBA moment of this decade. It was enough to rejuvenate my love of the game for a while.

2005 was another year where I really enjoyed the NBA. My Bulls were back in the Playoffs, the Lakers dismantled their team and missed the Playoffs, and the NBA Finals ended up being between the last two champions, neither of which were star-driven or egomaniacal. The Finals went seven games, with the Spurs pulling it out at the end. While I had been rooting for the Pistons to repeat, I was at least glad that it had been a good series.

Just when the skies seemed to be turning blue, the dark clouds came back in 2006. The NBA Finals ended up being between the Heat and Mavericks, two former expansion teams making their first Finals appearances. I was rooting for the Mavericks, as the Heat seemed to be just another glitz-and-glamor team full of overrated big-name players. The Mavericks were a well-built, well-run team that had been waiting longer than the Heat had. The Mavericks won the first two games before the referees started giving Dwyane Wade every call and basically handed the Heat the NBA title. It made me angry, because the Mavericks deserved it that year. All of a sudden star power once again preceded good team play.

My favorite part of last year's NBA season was my Bulls sweeping the overhyped Heat in the First Round. It was disappointing when they lost to the Pistons in the Semifinals, but it was still a treat just to see them there. The Cavaliers, who happened to have the most promising young star in the NBA, beat the favored Pistons in the Eastern Conference Finals. Their NBA Finals opponent was the Spurs, who at that point had gotten boring. Before you get offended Spurs fans, I say the Spurs are boring because they win all the time. I like to see new teams win it, not the same teams adding to the championship pile. Last year the Spurs started to become more widely known as a dirty team full of whiners, a contrast to the clean-cut, likable image they once projected. When the Spurs swept the Cavaliers for their fourth NBA Championship it was as anticlimactic as you'd expect.

This year the Lakers, last year's 7th seed, have the West's top seed, and the Celtics, who only won 24 games last year, have the East's. How perfect is that? Two teams that once had a prominent rivalry suddenly shot to the top. Somehow all the right players fell into their laps and the possibility of them meeting in the NBA Finals this year is being floated left and right. The NBA sure got lucky with such a marketable prospect, huh?

Since baseball was the first sport I fell in love with, my approach to basketball was mostly the same. I liked learning about the teams and their histories. I liked looking up the statistics. I liked learning about the great teams of the past and seeing how the combination of players they had made them successful. When I discuss basketball with other fans though, it seems that most of them are only interested in talking about star players and arguing over who's better. I suppose that's a key difference between the two sports: a single player can have a bigger impact in basketball than in baseball. While I like the game of basketball itself, I don't like the way the NBA is marketed and subsequently the way many fans think about it. The only franchises that are stars in their own rights are the Lakers and Knicks, while all others take a back seat to their most recognizable players.

I've also discovered that most NBA players don't truly love the game, and I can understand why. As I mentioned, basketball is a sport where one player can make a big difference, so it'll naturally attract guys who just want to show off. Also, when size provides as much of an advantage as it does in basketball, tall guys can use basketball as a moneymaking opportunity. When you can get a big contract coming out of college and don't have to prove yourself in the minor leagues why wouldn't you give basketball a shot? Still, these aren't the types of players who are going to draw me in and make me want to watch.

I've begun to think about my younger years as an NBA fan. Was it always this way? Did it always seem like everything predictably went the way that would make the most money for the NBA? It's a fact that the NBA Finals always featured big-market teams with superstar players during the 90's. Were stars always more important than the teams? I was too busy analyzing teams and appreciating lesser-known players to drool over individuals or worry about how they compared to each other. I knew that certain stars got preferential treatment, but I was able to convince myself back then that it didn't have any major effect on the game results. I felt bad about those blatantly incorrect calls that helped the Bulls clinch in Game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals, but I wrote them off as an anomaly at the time.

Maybe the I'm the one that's changed, not the NBA. When I look at the NBA today I mainly see a bunch of chest-thumping and glorification of the top dogs. Perhaps I've matured to the point where I can now see it for what it is. Mere greatness doesn't impress me anymore. I've seen plenty of it. I want to see franchises win their first titles, or at least their first in many years. I want to see humble players get their first rings. I want the teams to be more important than the players. I want to see stories I can be happy about. Unless I have a sense that I might see those things the NBA holds little appeal to me.

I want to love the NBA the way I used to. I fear though, that it won't happen until there are some major changes. I'd like to see an end to the star-driven marketing. All it does is breed bandwagoners and minimize the fact that basketball is a team sport. I realize that stars attract bandwagoners in every sport, but basketball is the only one that practically encourages it. I'd also like to see David Stern replaced as commissioner. It was on his watch that the NBA became this star-fueled machine with a cloud of corruption hovering overhead. The final straw for me was Stern's response to the discovery that most of the NBA's referees had violated the league's gambling rules. Rather than punishing the referees Stern simply changed the rules. Great move, Dave. That really dispels the appearance of shadiness. When many people already suspect your league is fixed a move like that does you no favors. Stern can't retire soon enough in my opinion.

I can no longer bother to get too emotionally involved in the NBA Playoffs. This year I'm basically rooting for anyone but the Lakers, Celtics or Spurs, but one of those teams will probably be hoisting the Larry O'Brien Trophy this June. I still check the NBA scores every day, but I have no desire to watch the games. Even though I'm new to hockey fandom I've actually watched more Stanley Cup Playoff games than NBA Playoff games this year. At least with hockey I know that the players are passionate about the game and that the focus will always be on the team first, not the stars. With basketball I feel like I'm just enjoying the last few weeks of false hope before the inevitable Lakers-Celtics Finals that I can treat the same way I treated the Super Bowl.

I wish I could think that there were others out there who felt the same way, but I know I'm likely in the minority on this issue. I'll probably never stop following the NBA altogether, but I have a feeling that my love will never be what it once was.

As this calendar year winds down I'm starting to reflect on just how much has happened during this year 2007. It seems like such a long time ago now, but I started this blog back in January, and my first post was about how miffed I was that the Chargers were upset by the Patriots in the Playoffs. At that point 2007 was just getting started, and none of us knew what this year held in store for us. Looking back on it all, there were some sports moments in 2007 that I really enjoyed, but just about all of them ended disappointingly.

Let's start with football. I experienced something this year that I never have before: I got to follow my team, the Chicago Bears, from the first game of the season all the way to the Super Bowl. I was surrounded by co-workers who only wanted to talk about the Cowboys and Redskins, but I always stood up for my Bears in football discussions. Once the Playoffs started one of my friends told me that they'd never make it to the Super Bowl with Rex Grossman at quarterback, but the Bears did me proud by proving all the doubters wrong. Unfortunately, the Bears lost to the Colts in the Super Bowl. It wasn't an ideal ending, but the season had been a great ride and there was reason to be hopeful about the future. As it's turned out, the Bears this season have been hurt by injuries and a dismal offense. They're going to finish with a losing record, and it's clear that several changes need to be made if this team is going to return to contention. The best thing you can say about the 2007 Bears was that they beat the Packers twice.

Super Bowl XLI now looks like a missed opportunity that the Bears may not get again for some time, but interestingly enough, it was also the biggest highlight of 2007 for me. I figured if the Bears were going to lose, it might as well be to a team that deserved the title. The Indianapolis Colts were most certainly that. Despite my team's loss, I was happy for the Colts. After having a very good team for so many years they finally got their hands on the Lombardi Trophy, and they did it with class. It was also nice to see the deluded New England fans who liked to say that Peyton Manning would never win the big one and who just couldn't accept the idea that he wasn't a born loser have to eat their words. I'll admit, that part made me feel good too.

In addition to the Bears' struggles, this NFL season has been pretty miserable for me. All five teams I hate (Patriots, Packers, Steelers, Giants and Cowboys) are in the Playoffs. The Patriots are close to going undefeated, but they've had a dark cloud of contempt surrounding them from day one. I'm forced to root for one of those teams I hate in their last game of the season in hopes that the evil Patriots won't pull it off. The Detroit Lions, a true underdog that would've made a great feel-good story, started out the season 6-2 and now could finish with a losing record. The only hope left for lovers of underdog franchises is the Cleveland Browns, who still haven't clinched a Playoff spot. Ultimately though, the only teams that look like they have a realistic shot of winning anything this year are teams whose fanbases have experienced the top of the hill recently enough that they have no underdog appeal. In the end I think it's likely that several of us will be picking a team to root for by figuring out which one we hate the least.

Then there was basketball. As a Bulls fan I was pretty excited when my team swept the defending champion Miami Heat in the first round of the Playoffs. The Heat were treated like a team with some magical formula for stepping up when it counted all season, but the Bulls dispelled that notion in four games. Having followed the Bulls through the post-Jordan years I was proud of those guys. They nearly got swept in the next round by the Pistons, but they hustled their way to two wins before bowing out in Game 6. It would've been nice to see them go farther in the Playoffs, but considering the progress they'd made it was nothing to be ashamed of. Like the Bears, it gave us fans a lot of hope for next season.

We're about two months into "next season" now and things haven't gone as expected. The Bulls have gotten off to slow starts each of the past three seasons, but they've always managed to get it together before too long. This time though, they've stretched out their poor start long enough that Scott Skiles has been fired as head coach and most people already consider this season to be a lost cause. I haven't completely given up on this Bulls team, but I think it's safe to say that even if they do turn things around and make the Playoffs they don't have what it takes to go very far once they get there. It's sad to see a team that started out as a favorite to win the East possibly headed to the draft lottery.

As for the rest of the basketball world, the San Antonio Spurs won their fourth NBA Championship in 2007. The Spurs are one of the most nondescript teams in the NBA. They win championships, but they don't inspire much emotion. The Phoenix Suns, a team that has been on the doorstep of NBA supremacy in recent years, had a chance to beat them in the second round of the Playoffs, but the Spurs ultimately prevailed. It left the Spurs as the only dominant team in the Playoffs and the almost inevitable champion. While I'm not a big LeBron James fan, I was rooting for the Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA Finals, since they'd never been there and the Spurs had. It wasn't even close, as the Spurs swept. When the Spurs won their first NBA Championship in 1999 it was exciting, as several players got their first rings and no former ABA team had ever even made it to the NBA Finals. Every championship they've won since then has been completely anticlimactic. It's like watching a computer win a chess game against a human opponent. This season the Spurs are again looking like the best in the West, while the team that's stepped it up in the East is the Celtics, from the dreaded city of Boston. Out of nowhere they acquired two All Stars in Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, giving their ever-obnoxious fans something else to boast about. The Pistons and Magic right now are looking like our only hopes not to have to see them in the NBA Finals.

Of course, there was still the greatest game in the world, baseball. 2007 brought me higher hopes than usual in baseball, only to end with me watching them get crushed successively. First there were my Cubs. They hadn't won the World Series since 1908, but all season they showed flashes of brilliance that gave the optimist in me hope the it could finally be "the year." They made the Playoffs with a mediocre 85-77 record, but as the Cardinals had proven the year before, just getting into the Playoffs is the important thing. Once you're in, anything can happen. After the Cubs fought their way into the postseason, it was as if someone suddenly cut off their supply of "heart" just before they faced the Diamondbacks in the Divisional Series. They seemed completely uninspired throughout the series, and the Diamondbacks swept. In a matter of days all the optimism among Cub fans had turned to disgust.

With the Cubs out of the picture, I decided to pull for another team that had been waiting a long time for "the year": the Cleveland Indians. They hadn't won the World Series since 1948, and they had beaten the hated New York Yankees in the first round. Unlike the Cubs, the Indians had tied for their league's best record, and they looked like they had a real shot at winning the World Series. They went up against another evil Boston team, the Red Sox. They managed to take a 3-1 lead in the series despite some struggles from their best starters, and it seemed as if destiny was on their side. Then it all came crashing down. The Red Sox destroyed them in the next three games to win the pennant and deprive the baseball world of a potentially great story. It didn't help that many members of the irksome "Red Sox Nation" showed a complete lack of class in victory.

I was pretty upset about the Indians having their title as AL Champs usurped by that evil team from America's Most Annoying City, but there was still a glimmer of hope going into the World Series. The Colorado Rockies had spent most of the season playing at a level just below contention, but they'd finished on a tear that took them all the way to the NL pennant. They'd won 21 of their last 22 games going into the World Series, and they were the only team in the NL that looked like a legitimate threat against the superior American League. I loved watching their run, as I'd considered the Rockies one of my "side" teams for years. Unfortunately, they were just starting to cool down as the Red Sox were hitting their stride. The Red Sox swept, and for the first time in my life three teams I'd really embraced lost in one postseason.

I suppose the best way to sum up 2007 in sports would be a year that teased me with the hope of great things to come and ended up as a morass of Boston egotism and the same old teams winning. I'm just glad I've started to follow hockey, as it's been my only refuge in the midst of the disastrous sports scene we're currently surrounded by. I just hope 2008 is better than 2007 was. I don't know if I can take two consecutive years like this one.

Baseball season ended less than two weeks ago and already I'm going through withdrawal. I've found myself playing Ken Griffey Jr. Presents Major League Baseball on the Super Nintendo just to fill the void in my life. There's no other sport that captivates me like baseball does. Without it the world is a much duller place. Nonetheless, I'll try to give some sort of take on the other sports I follow.

The NBA season has gotten off to an interesting start. Some of the predictions from my last post already look like they'll be wrong. Then again, anyone who follows sports knows that the way a team starts isn't much to go by. My Bulls just beat the Pistons tonight for their first win after a 0-4 start. Having a 1-4 record isn't ideal, but so what? There's still plenty of season to go. Last year they started 3-9. The season before that they were below .500 most of the year, and even had a 29-39 record at one point. The season before that they got off to a 2-13 start in which they lost their first 9 games. If you've been following the NBA during that stretch, you know they ended up in the Playoffs each of those years. Right now that 1-4 record doesn't look too bad. This Bulls team just finishes better than they start.

My "other" NBA team, the Clippers, is off to a 4-0 start. Color me surprised. With injuries to Elton Brand and Shaun Livingston I didn't expect much out of them this year. Then again, a good start can be just a deceptive as a bad one. In 2000-01 the Cavaliers started out 15-7. Their final record? 30-52. That's right, they got half their wins for the season in their first 22 games. Anything can happen at this point. I'm not going to rush to any conclusions about any teams yet. All I can say is that I hope the Clippers continue to play well and that the Bulls can get back on track after tonight's win.

I'll just skip the NFL since the Lions' 6-2 start and the Browns' 5-3 start have been the most interesting parts of it for me. With my Bears struggling, the only enjoyment I've gotten out of this season is watching the underdogs win. What other sport is there to talk about, you ask? My profile says I only follow baseball, basketball and football. Well, I've started to become more conscious of another sport this season: hockey.

I've always had a weird relationship with hockey. When I was growing up they used to show Blackhawks games on SportsChannel (remember that, Chicagoans?), but at the time I was all about baseball and basketball. I would read the articles in the Chicago Tribune criticizing the Blackhawks' management and analyzing their trades, but between school and following my main sports there wasn't much room for me to be a real hockey fan. Over the past few years I've developed an interest in hockey, because one of the reasons I love baseball seems to apply to hockey as well: the guys who play it have a true passion for the game. That's not to say that athletes in other sports don't have passion, but guys can become basketball players just because they're tall, and guys can become football players just because they're big or fast. Baseball and hockey require more specialized skills, plus you have to go through the minors to make it to the top. If you see an MLB or NHL game you know it took a lot of hard work for those guys to get there. That's the kind of sport I can appreciate. I guess you could say I've always wanted to be a hockey fan but found it hard to do so.

One big problem, especially these days, is that it's hard to find a hockey game on TV. I recently discovered though, that there's an NHL Network on digital cable. I've actually enjoyed watching some of the old games from the 80's that they show. I've heard that hockey was more exciting in those days, but even if the game isn't quite as high-scoring today I can see its appeal. The Blackhawks have been a pretty bad team in recent times (only one Playoff appearance in the past ten years), but they have some young guys coming up that give them hope for the future. They currently have a winning record and look like they have a shot at the Playoffs this season. Perhaps now is a good time for me to become a real hockey fan. Call me a bandwagoner if you wish, but I take pride in any team that represents Chicago. If the Blackhawks ever win another Stanley Cup someday I want to be able to say I was a part of the experience.

I could talk about baseball and all the offseason player movement, but I don't have much to say about it. The only thing I will say is that I hope the White Sox aren't planning on having Juan Uribe start at shortstop next year. I hope the only reason they exercised his option was to have a backup plan. If he's our starter in 2008 we're going to have a big hole in our lineup. Neither the Cubs nor the Sox have made any major moves yet, so until they do I have no particular expectations for next season.

This may be the first post I've made on this blog that covered all four major sports. I guess I'm legit now.

Perhaps thirteen is an unlucky number after all. In this case thirteen is the number of days it took for this baseball season to fall apart. On October 16 I was feeling pretty good. The Rockies had won the NL pennant the day before and the Indians beat the Red Sox 7-3 to take a 3-1 lead in the ALCS. Everything seemed to be going my way. Then the Red Sox suddenly forgot how to lose and brought their amnesia with them to the end of the World Series. As a resident of the Eastern Time Zone it was just past midnight on October 29 when the Red Sox won it. It's not often that my heart is broken three times in one postseason, but it happened this year.

I don't blame the Rockies' loss on the eight-day layoff. People always bring up the six-day layoff when talking about last year's Tigers, but they forget that the 1995 Braves and 1996 Yankees both won the World Series after six-day layoffs. It certainly didn't hurt those teams. The Rockies may have had two extra days, but I don't think there's some magic maximum number of days you can be off before it starts hurting you. A long layoff is a long layoff. I don't think it affected the Rockies as much as people think. They just got outplayed by a team that was on fire. The way the Playoff system is currently constructed that seems to be the key to winning the World Series, and the Red Sox simply had everything going their way.

Over the past few weeks I've been pretty open about my hatred of the Red Sox and Boston sports in general. I think it's time I moved on from the subject, since it only makes me angry and I've pretty much beaten it to death. I just want to make one last statement about it though. I've seen several people during these Playoffs saying that we should all be happy for the Red Sox and their fans because of the 86-year drought that ended in 2004. These people seem to think that the Red Sox deserve more titles after going so long without any. Sorry, but no. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you get to see your team win it even once you're a very fortunate person. Check out the droughts some of these other franchises have:

Cubs: 99 years since last title
Indians: 59 years since last title
Giants: 53 years since last title
Rangers: Never won a pennant (47 seasons in Majors)
Astros: Never won a World Series (46 seasons in Majors)
Nationals: Never won a pennant (39 seasons in Majors)
Brewers: Never won a World Series (39 seasons in Majors)
Padres: Never won a World Series (39 seasons in Majors)
Mariners: Never won a pennant (31 seasons in Majors)
Rockies: Never won a World Series (15 seasons in Majors)
Devil Rays: Never had a winning season (10 seasons in Majors)

The median age in the U.S. is about 35. That means that the average fan of over a third of the Major League teams has never seen a World Series title. Six other teams (Pirates, Phillies, Orioles, Tigers, Royals and Mets) have waited more than 20 years since their last one. The idea that anyone should be sympathetic to a team with "only" one title in the last few years is insulting.

Now that your team has won this one, Red Sox fans, you officially have no right ever to bring up the 86-year drought again. You are no longer a tormented fanbase. Your team is the new Evil Empire. People hate the Red Sox for the same reason they hated the Yankees back in the day. They know the Red Sox are the top dog and that they have plenty of resources available to acquire the best talent. Seeing the top dog win it is fun for fans of that team, but for the rest of us it's boring and makes an unmemorable story.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the true blue Red Sox fans who humbly appreciate the fact that they were able to experience this after so many years as an also-ran. As far as I'm concerned though, any fan who feels a sense of entitlement because of a defunct drought or a sense of personal superiority because of his team's success is unworthy to share in the joy of a championship. Your team won it. Be grateful and remember that you were lucky to witness it. Anyway, that's all I have to say about that. Hopefully I'll have no reason to say anything bad about Boston for the rest of the year.

Now that baseball season is over there's a void in my life. In a way it's a relief when the season ends, because you don't have to be nervous about the final outcome anymore. Still, I just spent seven months waiting for this anticlimactic ending and it'll be several months before the hope of a better one gets here. Oh well. The NBA season starts tomorrow and the Bulls are considered a favorite to win the East. Unfortunately, there's another East team everyone's talking about this year, and they hail from the city of...Boston. Sheesh. Still, the Celtics haven't proven they're legit yet and the Bulls have made the Playoffs the last three years. It should be exciting. There's also the NFL, but I just haven't been able to get into it this season as much as I was last year. It doesn't help that the Bears aren't doing very well and that the only team anyone seems to be talking about is New England. I think I'll just continue following the NFL lightly this year. I have a feeling that I shouldn't get too emotionally invested.

By now we've all heard that the Celtics are trying to lure Reggie Miller out of retirement. Danny Ainge is doing his best to put together a veteran supporting cast for his new "Big Three" of Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Miller would assume a bench role behind Allen, filling in as a three-point specialist for short minutes every night. A lot of fans want to see it happen, since Reggie Miller in his prime was one of the NBA's most exciting players and this might be a shot for him to get the championship he never won with the Pacers. This fan, however, is not one of them.

Even though the Bulls are my team, I could never bring myself to hate our division rivals, the Pacers. I always wanted to see them win a championship after the Bulls' run ended. I was disappointed when they lost to the Lakers in the 2000 Finals, since that season was the last chance that particular core of players got and they weren't able to close the deal. Sure, I "hated" the Pacers when they played the Bulls, but I always respected them.

Their leader during all these contending years was Mr. Pacer himself, Reggie Miller. He was a deadly three-point shooter, well-known for coming through in the clutch. He had a cocky persona, but to me it always seemed like an act he was putting on for show. While a lot of basketball stars back then wore numbers 32, 33 or 34 he wore number 31, an unusual prime number without much symmetry that you didn't see stars wear as often. Put it all together and there was something really cool and unique about him that I liked.

When Reggie Miller retired he was a few months short of 40. He had spent 18 years in the NBA, all of them with the Pacers. He had also managed to average double-figure scoring in each of those years, an impressive feat. Ron Artest's suspension during Miller's last season may have helped him there, but the stats are what they are.

His last game was a Playoff loss to the Pistons, and I remember all the talk after it ended. The Pacers lost the series in six games, with Reggie scoring 27 points in the last one. After that performance some speculated that he still had enough to keep playing, but he pointed to his poor performances in Games 4 and 5 as evidence that he didn't. I liked that, since it indicated that he wanted to go out on top. On ESPN radio one of the guys said that Reggie Miller didn't seem to have the ego of a Michael Jordan, who would keep retiring and returning. He was confident that when Reggie retired he planned to stay that way. I hoped it was true, since it seemed like just the right time for him to call it quits.

I'm not sure how serious Reggie Miller is about the possibility of a return, but I don't think it's a good idea. For one thing, he'll be 42 years old next season. Few players have ever played at that age, much less been effective. He might still be able to hit an occasional three-pointer, but he'll also be an injury risk. The argument to counter this is that he won't be asked to play very many minutes, so it shouldn't be as much of a strain on his body. What I wonder though, is what skills a 42-year-old Reggie Miller has that a younger player couldn't provide for the same price? Perhaps Reggie has more "veteran leadership" or something, but who would you rather rely on in the Playoffs? A 30-year-old three-point specialist or a 42-year-old former star playing the role of a three-point specialist? You might take Reggie because of his reputation, but clutch shots can come from anyone. Look at Travis Best against the Bucks during the Pacers' 2000 Finals run. How about Steve Kerr? He was just a journeyman before the Bulls picked him up and gave him some playing time. We remember him now as a dangerous three-point shooter, but his career might have ended had the Bulls not given him a chance. It's my belief that there are plenty of guys who could do the same thing the Celtics are asking Reggie Miller to do for the same price. All they need is the opportunity to prove themselves.

Michael Jordan's stint with the Wizards always comes to mind when the subject o####reat player returning from retirement comes up. I remember all the hype preceding his decision. Analysts loved the idea. They "knew" that Michael Jordan still had the skills to play at the same level. He was arguably the greatest player in NBA history. Who wouldn't want to see him play again? I, for one, didn't want to see him return for many of the same reasons I don't want Reggie to. He'd established himself as the greatest player in the history of one franchise, spending his entire career with them. He'd gone out on top, hitting the game-winner in the NBA Finals. Where else could he go but down? After he announced his return several people picked the Wizards to be a contender. They'd been through some lean years at the time, but they hadn't had a player like Michael Jordan either. The results ended up being pretty much what I'd expected. While Jordan still had the talent to score 20 points a game he just wasn't the same player. If you look at the numbers, he was already starting to decline in his last year with the Bulls. He only got worse in Washington, and the team never made the Playoffs either. Looking back on the whole fiasco I feel like Jordan tainted his career somewhat. While Reggie Miller was never the player Jordan was, I think his career was about as good as one could hope for without winning a championship. I don't want to look back on it and remember that disappointing stint he had with the Celtics.

There are other reasons I don't want Reggie to return which are petty by comparison, but they matter to me. For one thing, he wouldn't be able to wear his familiar number 31. Like too many other numbers the Celtics have retired it, for Cedric Maxwell no less. On a side note, Cedric Maxwell is a stupid number retirement. Sure, he was good. Sure, he had a cool nickname ("Cornbread"). Sure, he was an important contributor on two Celtic championships. Was he ever an elite player? No. Could he have led the Celtics to a championship without Larry Bird? No. Having his number retired would be like the Bulls retiring Toni Kukoc's number, but I digress. I like it when guys wear the same number their entire careers, and I can't see Reggie Miller wearing something other than his old 31.

Another thing is the double-figure scoring average streak. It would almost certainly end with the Celtics, as it was already in jeopardy during his last years with the Pacers. He wouldn't be playing enough minutes or getting enough shots to score at least 10 points consistently, and as we've already covered, he's not getting any younger. You may say that they're just stats, but I think it's cool when the numbers reflect a guy staying above a certain level of play for his entire career. Reggie has that right now, and all it takes is one subpar season to destroy it.

In the same vein, there's the issue of him playing his entire career with one team. Not many guys can say they played 18 years in the NBA, and even fewer can say they spent them all with one team. The only other one I can think of is John Stockton, who spent all 19 of his seasons with the Jazz. This is a rare combination of longevity and loyalty which he'd be giving up by playing for Boston.

If Reggie Miller really wants to return it's his choice. Maybe he'll be a piece to the championship puzzle that was never quite assembled in Indiana. Maybe he'll have fun playing the game he's given so much of his life to again. Maybe he'll even surprise us by averaging 10 points a game. On the other hand, maybe he'll get injured and miss out on everything. Maybe the Celtics will end up like the Larry Brown-era Knicks. Maybe he'll be a shell of his former self that looks out of place on the court. Maybe we'll think of him the same way we remember Babe Ruth with the Braves, Emmitt Smith with the Cardinals or Karl Malone with the Lakers: a once-great athlete sadly hanging on too long. I personally hope he doesn't suit up for the Celtics next season, but it won't shock me if he does. If Reggie returns, he had better hope it's worth it.