Every so often you hear of a famous person, rather it be an athlete, actor, or musician getting preferential treatment from the judicial system, the question is how do we separate what is actually preferential treatment from normal everyday happenings? What I'm talking about right now is specifically J.R. Smith and the accident that he caused by running a stop sign, in which one of the passengers in his vehicle died. Smith was given a ticket for his transgressions, however by reading the comments here on Foxsports it seems some people would like to see Smith charged with vehicular manslaughter. My question is, would the ends justify the means, or is this an example of a public who is tired of hearing about famous people getting preferential treatment 'crying wolf'? Every day there are a plethora of car accidents throughout the nation, in many of these someone does not walk away. And in most of them no one is charged with any type of crime, or at least not something as major as vehicular manslaughter. You don't hear people complain about these hundreds of thousands of cases, so why is it that this one is special? The circumstances are the same, however the names are not. J.R. Smith is a name that almost any basketball fan recognizes. So instead of getting preferential treatment it seems that a lot of people would like to see the opposite done, they would like to see Smith 'made an example' of how the US judicial system is not going to cater to these rich and famous who seem to think they are above the law. Well, just as giving someone a break because they are famous is wrong, so is punishing them more so than a regular Joe. Instead of wanting to see Smith in jail because of who he is, we should ask if we would want to see one of our family members, one of our coworkers, or one of our friends thrown in jail for the same thing. Because in the end, no matter what his name is, J.R. Smith is just that, a family member, a coworker, and a friend.

Ask any young child who Babe Ruth is, and they'll have an answer. It will probably be something along the lines of, 'he was the greates baseball player to ever play'. Now ask that same kid about Wilt Chamberlain, and illicit a response of 'who?'. So why is it that Chamberlain never reached the hallowed status that Ruth (or even Michael Jordan) has? Statistically both Chamberlain and Ruth were head and shoulders above the competition throughout their careers. Both set records at the highest level of their sport, Wilt's still stand. Both were versatile stars, Ruth being both the great pitcher and the great hitter, Wilt being the superstar basketball player and the world class track athlete.Both were known to enjoy the finer things in life, with Babe it was food, alcohol, and of course women. Wilt was known for staying out late into the night and not waking up before noon, and of course there's the 20,000 women claim. With so many similarities it begs the question, why hasn't Wilt reached that status?
Maybe the reason that Wilt was never as widely revered as Ruth can be seen by the naked eye. Ruth was a white baseball player who could be seen as a regular everyday guy, Wilt was a black basketball player who was freakishly tall. As Alex Hannun said, "Nobody loves goliath," and this is especially true when goliath is a black guy during a very racially charged time period. Of course it's easty to use the black vs. white issue and claim it is the only reason Wilt isn't even considered the best player to have played his game (hi MJ), but there's still more to the story. Ruth made an immediate impact in his first full season of major league ball, helping the Red Sox win a championship, for Ruth this would be the first of many. Wilt on the other hand didn't win his first of two titles until he was 8 years into his career, and only averaged 18 points per game in the finals. This is a prime example of how much winning championships effects a players legacy, one and you can be great, two and you can be one of the best, three or more and you can be the best. At least that's the formula that seemed to work for Ruth, and Jordan.

The NBA has a serious problem. No it's not the refs being out of control, it's not the players being thugs, it's not even the preferential treatment that some players recieve. No this is a problem that's out of the leagues hands, a problem that they can't control. What is the problem? Fans. More specifically, fans complaining about EVERYTHING. No matter what the NBA or it's refs do, people complain about it. However, it's not a coincedence that it's the losers who are complaining. From Mavs fans complaining about Dwyane Wade getting every call in last years finals, to Lakers fans complaining about all of the "flops" that (apparently) cost the Lakers their first round series against the Suns. It seems fans can no longer have fun watching a game if their favorite team loses. What happened to being able to enjoy a game, to enjoy THE game? In High School my team wasn't very good, the year before I got there they won 0 games. You know why people kept playing though? Because basketball is fun, fans seem to forget this. There's nothing fun about complaining about the refs, or about the calls they make. The fun thing about the NBA is watching some of the world's best players playing a GAME. Fans should watch the game because it's fun, not because they want to see their team win. I'm a very competitive person, and I'd be the first to say that winning IS fun, but it's not the only thing that's fun. I implore everybody to remember why they fell in love with basketball, and to remember that the game can be enjoyable no matter who wins.

1st blog post \m/