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.

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.

I was reading bgalella's blog entries about the worst NBA throwback jerseys (a must-read if you like old basketball uniforms and obscure NBA players) and I got to thinking about how many uniforms in sports today I don't really like. For some teams it's not so much that their current uniforms are terrible, just that their old ones were so much better. I feel that many of today's sports uniforms are either too dull or try too hard to look "modern." Sometimes it seems to be a combination of both. With that in mind, I've come up with a list of the top ten pro sports teams whose old uniforms I wouldn't mind seeing brought back. Because baseball, basketball and football are the only sports I follow very closely, those are the only ones that will be represented on this list. I've included photos for anyone who needs visual proof.

10. Pittsburgh Steelers

When I think of the Steelers I think of a tough, blue-collar team. Their old uniforms reflected that.

Their current uniforms, however, replaced the old varsity block numbers with these skinny, rounded-edged, slightly slanted numerals. They don't look nearly as intimidating as the old ones did.

See what I mean?

9. Utah Jazz

I'll admit that those old uniforms with the J in "JAZZ" shaped like a musical note would probably look outdated in today's NBA, but what was so bad about the ones with the mountain in the background?

They weren't the best, but look at the ones they have now.

They're so...boring. They have no personality. I'd rather see the original with the musical note than these.

8. Houston Astros

Their current uniforms are OK, I suppose, but the Astros don't seem like a "pinstripe" team to me, if that makes any sense.

I thought the ones they had before looked good though.

I honestly don't know why they felt they needed to change these.

7. Minnesota Vikings

I'd always liked the Vikings' old uniforms.

They weren't spectacular, but they looked like you'd expect a traditional football uniform to look. For some reason they decided to "update" them.

Same basic design, but the rounder edges on the numbers and the white stripes on the sides and sleeves make them look more like the run-of-the-mill "modern" uniforms we're seeing more and more of these days. Their originals just looked better.

6. Denver Nuggets

Powder blue is not a tough-looking color, though some try to make it so.

Their previous uniforms seemed more appropriate for a bunch of guys representing the mile-high city. The N and S were big, while the "UGGET" in the middle was shaped like a mountain. Their colors weren't wimpy either.

I had a hard time finding a good photo of a player wearing this uniform. I guess when a team is perennially one of the worst in the NBA it tends not to get as much media coverage.

5. Buffalo Bills

The Bills had some classy uniforms back in the day. The colors were vibrant and the numbers were distinctive.

The ones they have now are too complex and the colors have been dulled.

How does a team actually look at this design and consider it an improvement?

4. San Diego Padres

I liked the Padres' uniforms in the 90's. The one with pinstripes and no numbers on the front is still the ultimate Padre uniform to me.

After wearing a butchered version of that uniform for a few years they changed to this thing they wear now:

Boooooring.

3. Houston Rockets

The Rockets' current uniforms have sort of an "Eastern" flavor, probably because one of their star players is from China.

While these current ones are better than the ones they had in the late 90's, they still don't compare to the ones they'd had for about 20 years before that.

Simple but effective. They changed them after winning the second of their back-to-back championships. They haven't won one since.

2. Toronto Blue Jays

I always loved the old Blue Jays uniforms. They had unique lettering, and that logo that combined a blue jay head, a baseball and a maple leaf was pretty cool.

Now they have uniforms that are just ordinary.

You never really appreciate a good uniform until it's gone.

Finally, the uniform I miss the most...

1. Sacramento Kings

I don't care what anyone says, those old Kings uniforms were awesome.

I even own a Mitch Richmond jersey in that design. Now their road uniforms have purple as the main color.

I know that purple is a "royal" color, which fits with the name of the team, but it just doesn't have the same edge. Neither does the lettering.

Yes, change is inevitable in life. That doesn't mean I have to like it. If any of these teams decided to go back to their old look you wouldn't hear me complain. Can you think of any uniforms that you wish were still being worn today?