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.

One of television's longest-running hits is professional basketball. The concept is one of the most brilliant ever conceived. There are 30 teams, and they can be divided into two categories: "The Lakers" and "Other". The main question each season is whether the Lakers can play together, deal with injuries and get past the villainous "Other" teams to win the championship. It makes for compelling drama and it's all filmed in front of a live audience.

The ensemble cast of characters is part of this show's appeal. There's head coach Phil Jackson, who's constantly trying to uphold his reputation as a genius. He's a good character study, as it's not always clear whether he's as arrogant as he acts or if he's insecure about the fact that he's clearly not invincible, as he was once thought to be. There's star player Kobe Bryant, who's constantly trying to prove that he's the best in the league. He's had trouble with Jackson in the past, so the question of how long they can peacefully co-exist adds some tension to the mix. There's Derek Fisher, a cast member who left the series for a while to do some untelevised roles. He returned this season, much to the delight of longtime fans who like the chemistry he brings. There's also Lamar Odom. He was one of the guys brought in four seasons ago to replace the top-billed Shaquille O'Neal. While some fans had a hard time accepting him at first, he's established himself as a key element to the show's success.

As the Lakers are the focal point of the entire program, it always seems wrong when the protagonists get eliminated from the Playoffs and one of those "Other" teams succeeds. Part of the show's genius is that they sometimes televise a game where the Lakers aren't one of the two teams playing. The reason for this is to give the viewer an idea of how tough the competition will be when the Lakers play those teams. You can't fully appreciate the antagonist without proper background, and this show cares about character development. As is common knowledge, almost nobody actually roots for those "Other" teams except a few contrarians. Just look at the front page of the FoxSports Blogs. Every post in the pro basketball section is usually related to the Lakers. You occasionally get those intellectual types that want to analyze the bad guys, but most people just want to talk about the success of the good guys.

There are several notable villains on this series. First and foremost, there is LeBron James, the supervillain who plays for the Cleveland team. Kobe and LeBron are always competing for the title of "Best Player in the League". While Kobe is the hero, some believe that LeBron could defeat him if it came down to just the two of them. It's a scary thought, but so far we have yet to see it reach that point. Until it does the debate will continue and the threat of it happening will be an undercurrent to each season. Another villain is the aforementioned Shaquille O'Neal. He used to be one of the good guys, but he eventually went to the dark side. Fans have had to watch bitterly as he won a championship playing for the Miami team two years ago, and more recently as he joined the Phoenix team that has eliminated the Lakers from the Playoffs the past two seasons. You also have the San Antonio team that wins with machine-like efficiency and the Boston team that used to be an annual rival back in the 80's. The Boston team has been getting many of its games televised this season, so perhaps the producers are trying to foreshadow an NBA Finals matchup between them and the Lakers. Of course, you have to watch, because you never know when they'll flip the script on you.

There have been a few cases where one of the "Other" teams got its own spinoff. Back in the 90's the Chicago team developed sort of a cult following and even got more media attention than the Lakers. Some even thought that they could supplant the Lakers in terms of overall fan popularity (similar to the way "Family Matters" went on to be much more popular than "Perfect Strangers"). Still, people eventually lost interest in the Chicago team (mainly due to excessive cast changes) and once again the Lakers had the spotlight all to themselves.

The Lakers are looking like a threat to win the championship this season, but the race is so close right now that there's no telling what will happen in the Playoffs. If the Lakers should lose in the postseason, it's a safe bet that 99% of pro basketball fans will be disappointed. The remainder of the Playoffs, which will only be televised for curiosity's sake, will most likely be a total bore. If this program's decision-makers know what they're doing, they'll cheer the fans up this year and let the Lakers capture the title. If they're not careful, the villains might become more popular than the heroes again.




(Note: I realize it's somewhat subtle, but this is a satirical piece. I am not a Lakers fan. At all.)

As some of you know, I've decided to boycott the Super Bowl this year. Don't try to talk me out of it; it's non-negotiable. I can't root for the Giants, because any quarterback that refuses to play for the team with the #1 pick has to suffer the same fate as John Elway: early success with an above-average team in the NFL's weaker conference, but no ring until at least his 15th year. I can't root for the Patriots either, because their team photo appears next to "evil" in the dictionary. No, nothing short of Cheap Trick being called in as a last-minute replacement for Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers as the halftime entertainment could get me to watch this Super Bowl. The question that remains though, is what am I going to do on Sunday night?

Let's see what's on the schedule for the other channels I normally watch.

Hmmm...it looks like the other major networks are showing news during the Super Bowl. Oh wait, NBC is showing "The Biggest Loser: Couples." That sounds like a good alternate name for Super Bowl XLII. ABC is also showing "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," A.K.A. The Show That's Half Commercials. They're following that with "America's Funniest Home Videos." No thanks.

Zoinks! The Cartoon Network is showing a Scooby Doo marathon. In all honesty, that might be the best option I've come across so far.

CMT is showing Fried Green Tomatoes. Sorry, I'm not into "chick flicks." After that they're rerunning episodes of "Gone Country" which I've already seen. Any show where the likes of Dee Snider, Sisqo and Marcia from "The Brady Bunch" attempt to become country singers is can't-miss entertainment. I don't know if I feel like watching them again though.

Versus is showing something other than hockey. Pass.

Hey, there's a Wizards-Lakers game on the local sports channel. The Lakers' resurgence this year has gotten me depressed though, so I don't know if I can stand to watch that game.

Scooby, you may have some competition for your spot at the top of the power rankings. TV Land is showing "The Beverly Hillbillies," "The Andy Griffith Show" and "M*A*S*H." I'm not a huge fan of any of those shows, but they're usually a nice way to pass the time.

TBS is showing some "Bridget Jones" movie. See my comment on Fried Green Tomatoes.

C-SPAN is showing "Road to the White House 2008." Hey, now there's an idea. I could get caught up on the current political race. I have a feeling though, that after it's all said and done I still won't like any of the candidates they're hyping.

How about my old hometown's local channel, WGN? Oh great. More "America's Funniest Home Videos," and then, if that weren't enough, it's followed by "Funniest Pets and People," which is essentially the same show. Hey, "American Idol Rewind" is on after that. The description says "Wildcard Show." Wow, there's a change. Whenever I checked out "AI Rewind" in the past it was always a compilation show of those oh-so-hilarious bad auditions. You know, the ones with poor deluded souls who think screeching at the top of their lungs is actual singing? Those are funny once or twice, but after a while you just want to hit the mute button. I might tune in if indeed they're showing an episode with real performances.

How about the movie channels? Oh look, the Beatles' movie Help! is on. I've seen it before though. There's Facing the Giants, a football movie. I've heard it's good, but I think I'm done with football (and any gridiron team nicknamed "the Giants") until September. Stop the presses! Howard the Duck is on! I'm sure Ed Hardiman would be proud if I watched that. The Flintstones is on too. Remember that masterpiece starring John Goodman and Rick Moranis? I actually saw that in theaters when it came out. I don't think I've seen it since then. I think that streak will continue. Then there's An American in Paris, which I've also seen before. While Gene Kelly is much more entertaining than Bill Belichick, I don't think I feel like watching that particular movie.

The NHL Network is mostly showing "NHL on the Fly," which, for anyone who doesn't know, is just a show that gives you updates on the day's NHL games. I'm not going to sit and watch the same highlights over and over. I'd rather watch one of their random lists like "The Top Ten Left-Handed European Defensemen of the 1993-94 Season."

NBA TV is showing "NBA Vault" and that same Lakers-Wizards game I'm avoiding. I suppose some retro basketball stuff could be interesting.

The Game Show Network is showing "Greed," "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" and "Lingo." Those shows are OK, but nothing I'd go out of my way to watch.

Finally, the Hallmark Channel is showing a "Murder, She Wrote" marathon. If they were showing one of their formulaic feelgood movies I might watch just so I could be cheered up from the dismal reality that two teams I hate are playing for the NFL's championship, but if Angela Lansbury is the best they can give me I think I'll pass.

The Super Bowl is the biggest event in American sports, and as such it leaves a big gap to fill. There are some decent options on TV, but most aren't so great. The more I think about it the more I'm leaning toward just reading a book.

While I love basketball, the NBA seems to have lost some luster for me in recent years. I've thought about it and I've realized the problem: The commercials aren't as good as they used to be. In my opinion, the late 90's and thereabouts had the best commercials for athletes of any sport at any time. Today's NBA player commercials just don't have the same charm. With that in mind, I thought it would be fun to revisit some of these classics that still evoke a smile today.

Sprite

Admit it, Sprite's "Obey Your Thirst" campaign was the greatest in the history of ad campaigns. The commercials featuring Grant Hill have never been equaled. Someone on YouTube has already done us the favor of compiling all the Grant Hill Sprite commercials. The quality is unfortunately not the best, so you can't see the tears streaming down Grant's face when he starts his acting career, but at least the immortal "Cowboy" song is preserved.



The rest of these Sprite commercials didn't feature NBA players, but they aired during NBA games and are classic all the same.






Reading is FUNdamental

Yeah, they're corny, but you've gotta love 'em.

Reggie Miller:



Juwan Howard:



Shaquille O'Neal:



Nike

Remember when Anfernee Hardaway was a bonafide superstar? He even had a series of commercials for Nike featuring him and "Li'l Penny," a fast-talking puppet sidekick. Tyra Banks was known to appear in them too.





This list wouldn't be complete without Michael Jordan making an appearance, so here's the commercial that's stuck with me the most over the years.



I remember Jordan commenting on this commercial and saying that it seemed like he'd failed more than this commercial says he did.

Pepsi

Of course, there was always the big man himself, Shaq. He's never kept a low-profile, and back in the day he endorsed Pepsi.





All Sport

More Shaq, this time endorsing a drink that's a bit more obscure.



And finally...

Snickers

After Michael Jordan came out with his own cologne he was just asking to be spoofed.



After looking at these videos, can you honestly say that NBA commercials are better today? I think not. There were many more that I wanted to include, but space concerns and/or lack of a YouTube video prevented it. Still, I'm already starting to feel nostalgic.

Special thanks to Dwindy1's Sports and Beer post, which inspired me to put together this idea I'd been considering for a while.

It's recently been revealed that Eva Longoria, wife of Spurs point guard Tony Parker, is sporting a new tattoo on her neck.



If you can't tell what that is, it's the word "nine," which refers to Parker's jersey number.

I guess that's somewhat creative. After all, a player's uniform number can be a big part of his image. My question though, is what would happen if Tony Parker got traded to the Phoenix Suns or Atlanta Hawks? Tony Parker's good, but he's not good enough that Dan Majerle or Bob Pettit should ever give him special permission to wear the number retired in their honor.

I suppose he could switch to another number with 9 as a digit. Then Eva could just add on to the ink she has. Rather than "nine" it could be "nineteen," "twenty-nine" or even "ninety." She could also get it removed if she wanted. She's just lucky that she's famous though, because I hear tattoo removal is expensive.

For some reason it strikes me as funny that she would actually put something permanent on her body that referred to something that could possibly change. Personally, I'd file this "body art" under "ill-advised."

(photo courtesy of people.com)