Tomorrow, when the AFC and NFC championship games are played, four men will be coaching in one of the biggest games of their lives. But they certainly won't be dressed for the occasion. Rather, they will be wearing sweatshirts, parkas, turtlenecks, polos and any other casual apparel that has his team's logo on it. They will look more like the fans in the stands than authoritative figures. That's too bad, because it wasn't always this way.
Then and now.
Grainy films reveal that Dallas coach Tom Landry and Kansas City Chiefs coach Hank Stram used to lead their teams into playoff games donning three-piece suits or a blazer and slacks. They looked serious, like they were dressed to take care of business.
Even though a spot has been reserved for him in Canton Ohio, Bill Belichick does not quite give off the same image. Each week, he looks like a vagabond in his hooded sweatshirt with a large New England Patriots logo emblazoned on the front. In fact, you start to feel sorry for him until you remind yourself that it is Bill Belichick, winner of three Super Bowls.
In the same year the NBA told its players to dress up or be fined, the NFL ordered its coaches to do the opposite. Mike Nolan, the San Francisco 49ers coach, publicly said he was planning to wear a suit and tie on the sidelines this season. It seemed like a great idea to bust out some "old-school" threads. But the NFL wasn't too keen on Nolan's idea, because Reebok, which supplies all of the clothing for the league, wasn't happy with it. Reebok doesn't make suits, dress shirts or ties, after all. They do manufacture jumpsuits, t-shirts and polos with team logos that apparently sell like hotcakes. And it's a money-making business when it comes down to it.
But the NBA seems to get along fine without having their coaches dress like slobs. Since 1981, the Association has made them wear suits or sport jackets. They look sharp, and Miami Heat coach Pat Riley seems proud of the fact he gets to wear Armani duds on the bench. The NBA, which is ultra-conscious of how it markets its product, apparently doesn't need the coaches hawking the apparel it sells in stores. Neither does Reebok, which is the exclusive supplier of team uniforms and warm-ups. Not many fans are going out of their way to copy the look of Larry Brown and Scott Skiles, after all.
So, when it comes down to it, it's obvious that the NFL is really calling the shots here. They don't want their coaches looking presentable on the sidelines. They'd rather have them act as models for the apparel the league and its clothing supplier are selling. Dan Reeves wore a suit for a number of years before switching to a polo when he was with the Falcons. Former Minnesota Vikings coach Mike Tice sported a tie and sweater until he began wearing a turtleneck. They were both encouraged by the NFL to make the switch as team apparel became more marketable. But by forcing the coaches to comply with a casual dress code, the NFL looks silly. And on Sunday, just like every other week, so will the coaches.
Kobe Bryant didn't express any remorse. He didn't apologize. He just whined and complained after being slapped by the NBA with a two-game suspension for hitting Memphis guard Mike Miller with a forearm shiver in last Tuesday's Los Angeles Lakers-Grizzlies game. It was a typical reaction by Bryant, a star who had already sullied his image and is now seen as a magnet for controversy. For a man who once was mentioned as Michael Jordan's heir apparent and viewed as the new face of basketball, Bryant has transformed into a player fans love to root against.
Doesn't get it.
Three years ago, it would have been hard to picture Bryant as a persona non grata. After all, he was doing ads for Sprite and adidas, while helping lead the Lakers to three consecutive NBA championships. But then he was charged with sexual assault and news began to leak out about his deteriorating relationships with teammate Shaquille O'Neal and Lakers coach Phil Jackson. By the summer of 2004, Bryant's popularity had dwindled substantially. He was blamed for Jackson's retirement and O'Neal being traded to Miami. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that Bryant's dyspeptic personality is the outer manifestation of a man who is confused on the inside.
Bryant wants not only to be loved by the fans but also maintain a level of street credibilty. At one point, he hated the squeaky clean image he had. He was the son of an NBA player, was raised as a child in Italy and was looked at as a talented player who got all the breaks in life. So he got some tattoos and went to Harlem's Rucker Park and put on a show with the neighborhood ballers one summer. He also began asserting himself in his relationship with O'Neal, a dynamic star who always got more of the limelight. But when Bryant began trying to gain more street cred, he antagonized some of the fans he once had.
The rape allegations didn't help and neither did his feuds with O'Neal and Jackson, who each seemed more mature and level-headed than the younger and considerably less savvy Bryant. As a result, the former Golden Child began losing his endorsements and suddenly found himself in no-man's land. He was never going to be loved like Allen Iverson by the kids in the #### and Corporate America, which had grown tired of his act, no longer wanted anything to do with him.
And who can blame them, especially after seeing Bryant's vicious flagrant foul? What happened last Tuesday was the latest missetep by a frustrated man who still doesn't get it. When he decked Miller, he didn't prove his toughness. He showed he was the same guy who ran off O'Neal and Jackson in 2004. Then the next day, Bryant was far from contrite, maintaining the same attitude the star guard had when he was being criticized for single-handedly destroying the Lakers team that won three titles. Bryant does not want to accept the blame. But he should, because in the end everything bad that has happened to him has resulted from his actions. If he just took responsibility for his transgressions, maybe he would get what he really wants -- approval.
Tomorrow could very well be a pivotal day for the NBA -- not because of what takes place on the floor but what could happen off it.
Whether or not it is by design, NBA executives have created a perfect marketing experiment with the games they scheduled for Christmas Day. On the one hand you have the Spurs-Pistons matchup that has substance and embodies the idea of team play, as opposed to the Lakers-Heat game, which will be all about style and the relationship dynamics of the individuals who are playing in it. The ratings for each game could help determine how the league should sell itself going forward.
Style or Substance?
Courtesy UPI
In the past, the NBA and Commissioner David Stern have used the names of certain players to sell the game. Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were pitchmen for the product and helped establish a worldwide following for the league. They were known simply as MJ, Sir Charles, the Mailman, Larry Legend and Magic, and they proved to be ideal representatives for their teams. However, in recent years, the NBA has been looking hard for their replacements.
They have used Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant along with Coach Phil Jackson to drum up interest in the NBA during the post-Jordan era. All three, of course, were once part of the soap opera that was the Lakers and each of them has been used to hype the game tomorrow. By now, even the most casual fan knows who Shaq, Kobe and Phil are.
That part is good for the NBA. But it still doesn't make up for the fact that the NBA has lost a lot of ground since Jordan left. The NFL has become by far the most popular sports league and its appeal seems to grow each year. Interestingly enough, Paul Tagliabue has marketed his league through the teams, not the players. Fans turn out to see the New England Patriots and the Indianapolis Colts, not just Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. Other franchises, like the Pittsburgh Steelers, continue to embody the qualities of their city. They have a rough, hard-hitting defense and a big, lumbering quarterback who looks like an everyday worker. They are part of the city's fabric.
In many ways, the San Antonio Spurs and the Detroit Pistons follow the NFL model. They are teams comprised of great players, but none of the individuals involved are superstars. Tim Duncan is unassuming and Ben Wallace does not produce enough offense to draw fans by himself. What sells the Pistons and Spurs is that they are more than the sum of their parts and they have the potential to be dynasties like the Patriots are in the NFL.
The NBA realizes this. It is why the matchup between the last two champions was scheduled for Christmas Day along with a game that has all the storylines, rivalries and glamour. By comparing the viewership both games attract, the NBA can see if it needs to alter its marketing strategy and follow the NFL's archetype. Tomorrow, the real matchups are not the Heat-Lakers and Pistons-Spurs. Rather they are are Individual vs. Team and Style vs. Substance.
As much as Stan Van Gundy proved a good sport by preaching the company line, no one in South Florida or the rest of the country believes that he resigned his position as head coach of the Miami Heat on Monday because he wants to hang out with his family. After all, for a man who has spent his life working his way up the ladder in the coaching profession, it is rather odd that Van Gundy suddenly realized that games, practices and road trips are time consuming.
Instead, Van Gundy appears to be the victim of a power play orchestrated by his star center Shaquille O'Neal and his boss Pat Riley. O'Neal, who returned to action Sunday after being out for a month with an ankle injury, had complained about Van Gundy's offense towards the end of last season. O'Neal's frustration seemed to mount after the Heat's loss to the Detroit Pistons in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals, when he lamented the fact that he did not get the ball enough in the closing minutes of the 88-82 defeat.
Less than a month after San Antonio knocked off the Pistons to win the NBA Finals, rumors began surfacing that Riley might return to coaching so he could work with the prized center he acquired the summer before. Riley, who had stepped aside from the Heat bench before the start of the 2003-2004 season after suffering through two dismal campaigns that saw Miami post a combined 51-103 record, reportedly expressed that he wanted to get back on the sideline after watching Van Gundy win 59 games and get to the cusp of the NBA Finals in 2005. Riley appeared willing to push his loyal pupil aside to get back to the top again. This really wasn't that surprising, because the man with the slicked-back hair and Armani suits had shown his true colors before.
Ten years ago, Riley suddenly resigned as head coach with the New York Knicks, citing "serious questions about authority and final decision-making." He had a year left on his contract and was only 12 months removed from guiding New York to its first NBA Finals since 1973. It seemed like a strange time to suddenly leave. However, Riley had been planning his departure for more than a week after the Heat began courting him with a more lucrative offer to take over its coaching duties. The Knicks filed tampering charges and eventually received a first-round pick and $1 million in compensation. Yet the bad blood that resulted from Riley's machinations persisted.
Riley appeared disingenuous then and he does so now, especially in light of the rumors that were circulating this summer. Riley explained Monday that Van Gundy's sudden resignation was a decision his pupil had made with no external influences. But it appears that a center's return to the court and a former coach's lust to roam the sidelines once again pushed Van Gundy to spend more time with his family, not a sudden epiphany that coaching in the NBA is time consuming.
My name is Rainer Sabin. I am a 23-year-old freelance reporter who has covered professional and Division I college sports for a variety of publications and news services.
Then and now.
Doesn't get it.
Style or Substance?
