I read this article on ESPN today, it covered Greg Popovich's thoughts on the breakup of Kobe & Shaq. I found his comments very interesting and it got me to thinking, was the breakup of the Lakers good for basketball, and will Laker fans and Anti-Laker fans miss watching Shaq & Kobe on the court? Below are some of the analogies Popovich used and his overall feeling towards the end of the Laker Dynasty. <font color="Blue">**Please try to stick to the question, there have been more than enough debates on Shaq vs. Kobe in the Laker Forum***</font> <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">"I hated it, personally," Popovich said of O'Neal's recent trade to Miami. "I think he's a great player. I think he's a wonderful individual off the court. I get a kick out of his humor. I think he's hell on wheels. And I'd rather have him there and have the Lakers be the Lakers, to be honest. "The competitive part of me feels like the Soviet Union just disbanded. You don't know who to go after. Obviously there are enough good teams [in the West], but the rest of us are all sort of equal. The Lakers were the Lakers. When you win three in a row, you get to have the status. And I hate the fact that they're gone."</div> Popovich On The Lakers
Its bad for Lakers fans but good for every one else :mrgreen: But anyway For me personaly I think its bad. Ill miss seeing Shaq and Kobe play along side each other in the coming season. But all dynastys must come to an end. Look how the bulls are doing right now. In another way its good though to see if Kobe can prve himself without Shaq. And if Shaq can dominate the East and lead his team to the finals once agin. Its also nice to see that PopaZit actually cares instead of being like O YEAH SHAQS IN THE EASt . The Suprs and Lakers rivalry was a very good one at that and Ill miss it. But then comes the new rivalry in the Heat and Lakers. I cant wait to see how next season ends up.
Was the trade good for the NBA? I have sort of pondered this question for some time and the fact of the matter is I could argue both sides of the equation. It was good for the NBA in that it opened up the NBA a bit, making it more competitive for some teams. Lets be real, the Lakers with Kobe and Shaq were a dynasty, if you could beat them, you worked your ass off. Having Shaq in Miami helps even the playing field a bit in terms of talent. It adds a dominant big man to the Eastern Confrence(something they have been missing for quite some time) along with boosting sales for all games that the Heat play. The Lakers will always sell out their games and will always have their jerseys in stores however before this trade Miami was sort of a lone wolf. You never saw their gear in stores and rarely did people go to their games(home and away). That is a totally different story with Shaq now. Ticket revenue will go up, sales will go up, etc. In that sense it was a good move for the NBA. The breakup of Shaq and Kobe was bad for the NBA in that they just lost a superpower. Everyone at times loves watching the giant squash the little peasant and thats what the Lakers did. When you hear the name Lakers, you think "excellence", you think of Kareem, Magic, Wilt, Jerry, etc. When I see the Lakers on TV I expect them to destroy their opponet no matter who it is or was. Thats just what I am use to, I am use to the Lakers being the dominant superpower like they were with Shaq and Kobe. Now there really isn't a superpower. One could argue that San Antonio or Minnesota is a superpower but they haven't done anything yet to earn that title. Everyone I knew use to love to watch the Lakers games when they played a top ranked team because the games were so entertaining. Teams use to play their hearts out when they played the Lakers because they wanted to beat "the best". Its like with Duke in college basketball. People always play their best against them because people always like beating the best. Now there is no "best" and in that sense I think it hurts the NBA in some way.
It could be one of those "Jordan vs. Bird" rivalries...kinda like they did with Shaq and Yao. Only thing is, it's nice because one is in the Eastern Conference, one in the West...and they are former teammates. I think the Lakers vs. Heat will be the most watched game of the season, and just imagine how it will help TV ratings if they both happen to play each other in the Finals (maybe in two years or so, but then again, you never know). And the All-Star game will be interesting...where we can see Shaq utilize the East roster and try and defeat a West staff that he's had so much success with in the past All-Star games. Also, I think everyone wants to see how Kobe will do without Shaq. Everyone has a general idea as to how Shaq will perform because of his career in Orlando, but Kobe has never played a season without Shaq. Compared to these two, who cares how well Francis will do without Yao? Not trying to cut down Steve or Yao, but the main focus will be on Shaq and Kobe, just like last year's rookie duo (LeBron and Melo). Adding in this year's rookies, all of the transactions so far, and the new division adjustments and expansion team...it should be an interesting and exciting season.
It was bad for the NBA. And here is why: Ratings. Like it or not, the NBA is at its peak when major market teams, such as the Lakers, Knicks, and Bulls are successful. Chicago and NY still continue to draw large revenues because of their large market, and their fans' devotion to their teams. However sales have slowed a bit to the recent downward spiral of both teams. As a result, it was the Lakers who were keeping the fans interested. Not everday fans could identify with Kobe, a likeable guy on and off the court(before the sexual assault charges). He was well publicized, and as was Shaq. Numerous deals with companies caused them to become household names. This was good for the NBA, as it allowed casual fans to gain interest in the NBA. But the Kobe/Shaq era is over. Will it hurt the NBA? Absolutely. Kobe is no longer seen on many advertisements. Who is going to be the face of the NBA now? Luckily, LeBron has came along and shown similar charisma and has a similar appeal to fans. But back to the original question about dynasties. Dynasties have ended. The last dynasty was the Boston Celtics and Los Angelas Lakers. Boston crumbled, but the Lakers still existed with Shaq and Kobe. However, with their breakup, it looks like Los Angelas has crumbled as well. With that, the NBA looks to be going to go thru a time where different teams every year could be champions. Contrary to common opinion, this is not what the NBA wants to see. A dynasty provides a source of pride for fans of that dynasty. As a result, there will be a large following of that team by most of the city, and potentially spreading throughout the state and other regions. But just as a dynasty has a great following, many will watch it out of hatred for that team. A good kind of hatred. Fans will watch, hoping to see that team lose. Its not really animosity, but more of a healthy dose of competition. Just as fans love their heroes, they hate their villians. And they will watch....hoping to see the villian conquered. So, you're asking me if the end of dynasties is a good or a bad thing? I say bad. Sure, it levels the competition and makes things interesting for the knowledgeable fan. But what it does, is make the casual fan less interested. The NBA will lose the casual fan. Think about it.....one of the main reasons the casual fan watches is because they are familiar with the team and its players, as well as the teams successes. The casual fan will not learn the team or the players of all the teams. A dynasty allows them to, as they can identify with just one team. Just my opinion.
Currently imo its bad for the nba. Depending on what team rises to take there place in the finals. Over the last five years the only time the lakers didnt make it to the finals the finals had a lower viewer rating then a monday night REGULAR season football game. With the lakers you kind of know about them you either hate them or love them. Though everyone has a destinct feel for the team weather it be love or hatered. Not all teams have that the lakers are like the yankees of basketball not everyone likes them, but everyone wants to watch them to see if they win (fans) or lose (haters). If the spurs dont get more exciting and duncan becomes more vocal and they are the new dynasty to take the lakers place then the nba will suffer a dramatic fall from this year the highest rated nba finals in 5 years. If the wolves take there place though imo I think it may still be highly rated only because more people know about KG than duncan do to him being more of a vocal leader. Also spree got here from new york if they made the finals you can bet all his friends, family, and supporters in new york would be watching. Thats a lot of people from one of the largest US cities. Back on topic though I do think the nba will suffer rating drops for the finals the next couple of years unless some team can rise above the rest and earn the right to be called a dynasty. The lakers wont be in championship form imo for at least another 4 to 5 years depending on drafts and players they sign. So IDK if people will agree, but judging by the fnals rating the only time the lakers were not there the last 5 years the nba will suffer.
As much as I hate the Lakers, it's pretty bad for the NBA IMHO. They set a standard of a team winning out of pure talent. Everybody wanted to beat the Lakers. They're beefing their team with beating the Lakers in mind. They'll get a big man to foul Shaq and almost every team will get a "Kobe Stopper". It's like they set a standard of excellence. Although not the past season.
I'm not sure why people believe that this was bad for the NBA? Yes, there are those that will say that this was the biggest TV viewing draw in the league and ratings will go down. I'll counter with the thought that alot of fans, like myself, could care less about watching the Lakers unless our favorite team was playing them. There's a new playing field out there folks and it's going to draw fans attention for one simply reason: There is no seemingly clear cut winner. At least one of the "Usual Suspects" is gone and must be replaced by another team. Fans are going to be curious as to which team exactly that will be. Sure people are attracted to seeing the Juggernaut beat up on everyone and the occasional upset that might come with that David and Goliath matchup. However, people also value legitimate competition where anyone can win. Take the NCAA tourney for example. I think the NBA will now see a time where parity is going to become the commodity that many fans are attracted to. A dominant Center comes to the East, instantly bringing some legitmacy to the post play in that Conference. "the Next coming" gets an opportunity to showcase his wares in the West, where he'll have to prove that a guard led team can overcome size out there. Everything is cyclical and all things must end. I think of this as an exciting new beginning, not a sad, tragic end.
True, but do you think the casual fan will continue to watch the NBA if the Lakers are done, or that if a new dynasty might not pop up? I don't. I mean, the only reason I watched the finals this year was because I wanted to see the Lakers lose. Other than the finals, I didn't watch any of the playoff games. In fact, I believe I only watched the first half of the Detroit/Indiana series in game 7. I consider myself as more than a casual fan....but even I lost interest in the NBA this year. Which brings me back to my point.....is the casual fan going to continue to watch the NBA without a dynasty to follow? The reason they are casual fans is because they don't have a "team" they follow. They simply follow the best team, as its the easiest to read about(via media). Without a dynasty......it could bring parity and competition back. But what I really miss is the Bird's Celtics vs Magic's Laker days. The dynasty days. And I think I am not the only one who yearns for those days. The NCAA Tourny is different. There, you have collegiate players playing because they truley love the game. Its the players you know who won't make it to the NBA, but give it everything they have, just to win...because they enjoy the game. That's something special. And something different than the NBA offers.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Without a dynasty......it could bring parity and competition back. But what I really miss is the Bird's Celtics vs Magic's Laker days. The dynasty days. And I think I am not the only one who yearns for those days.</div> While some will argue that maybe Carmello/LeBron could fill part of that void left by Bird/Magic, those days are over, IMO. I don't care about watching dynasty's becuase they have an element of predictability to them. Unless you're a fan of that team, it gets stale fast. Sure, the bandwagon fans won't turn on the tube furing the finals because the Lakers aren't there, but in all honesty, I could care less about those type fans, who most of the time can't even name the starting lineup of the team, let alone it's complete roster. I think true fans will come back to the sport with more enthusiasm now, because the days of the super-stacked LakeShow are over. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">the only reason I watched the finals this year was because I wanted to see the Lakers lose. Other than the finals, I didn't watch any of the playoff games. In fact, I believe I only watched the first half of the Detroit/Indiana series in game 7.</div> Nobody watched it because most people thought that regardless of who won, they were eventually losers who were going to get trounced by the Lakers. Alot of this is misinterpreted as disinterest in those teams, but I find it to be disinterest in watching a playoffs where the winner seemed pre-determined. Yes, that series wasn't the most exciting brand of basketball that the NBA has to offer, but it was a showcase of exemplary execution and defense, which goes largely unnoticed these days by the "casual fan" who only watches games so they can see some superstar on a go nowhere team do a highlight dunk. Sorry if that's somewhat jaded, but I think in the long run, the NBA is much better off because now the focus goes back to appreciating the whole league, not just it's center ring circus acts.
its sad in a sense that we wont get to see the Lakers anymore....in the era of the 00's, the LAKERS per say were always "Kobe & Shaq", it was the duo that inspired fear in all the teams in the league this is the team that other teams would haul thier whole rosters to match against....not so much in the East, but in the west.... now, they're split....it'll be sad for me personally cuz i had a brother who was a laker hater and i loved bustin him everytime the lakers won....he just wanted to see the lakers get dethroned and it was fun just watching the lakers in the playoffs and win things unexpectedly or lose unexpectedly....and it was always interesting to see who the lakers would lose to etc cause they were ALWAYS considered title contenders, even when they were the 5th seed 2 years ago... everyone knew how good this team was, its sad to see the duo that inspired fear in many other teams split apart but it ahd to happen sometime.... I believe the new dynasty will be the psurs but if thats true then ratings, sponsers etc will go down cuz they dont even genrate half the interst as the lakers do so business wise, it might be bad but basketball wise, it was bound to happen so im cool with it u can bet ABC or NBC or whoever is hosting the NBA this year will have "Kobe vs. Shaq" dramatic ads 5 weeks before they even meet....
Kobe and Shaq are unique. Never will be replaced. It would have been nice to see them win a couple more titles together.....
I believe it is both good and bad for the NBA. From a ratings standpoint, its probably bad. I'm not pocketing any money off of ratings so I couldn't give a damn. As Vintage has pointed out, casual fans tuned in every Sunday to watch the Lakers play on ABC. They are not going to be there to watch the Spurs battle the Wolves, although to the everyday basketball fan that would be very entertaining. I think this is great for everyone else not in Laker land. The playing field has evened out a bit. People will still tune in for the satisfaction of watching the Lakers lose, which will be a common occurance next season.
