Is the NBA’s Decline Much Ado About Nothing?

rior to this column (my 50^th, by the way), I have frequently interjected scattered thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and yes, even some praise for today’s NBA athlete and game. Television ratings have plummeted, commish David Stern is in denial, and older and former players are coming out one-by-one to offer their two cents on what they think is wrong with their beloved league, and game. Even some fans (not excluding myself) are experiencing waning interest.

Are pessimists reviving the old Shakespeare play "Much Ado About Nothing?" Several schools of thought reside in the masses. It’s a subject that has occupied more than a few of my own brain cells. I’ll break the two sides into the following camps"

As a person who has followed and examined this sport since the early 70’s, I do agree that there is a vast difference between today’s NBA player and yesterday’s NBA player. The reasons include the following:

• Players are, on average, younger.

• Players make more money

• Players get more media attention

• Players have agents

• Players get coddled at a younger age

• Players jump around from team to team

At face value, any time you give younger people buckets-full of money, they will invariably act more crazy, more reckless, and more stupid than somebody 10 years their senior. Human growth and maturity tendencies already tell us that. But how do all these factors affect the game, its quality, popularity, and television ratings? Let’s look at each one.

Players are younger – The younger you are, generally the less experienced you are. Because players enter the NBA out of high school or one or two years of college, their games are not as polished, refined, nor fundamentally sound. When they get to the NBA, coaches don’t have time to teach them what should have been taught in high school or college. What’s left? The old "school of hard knocks." Most find it difficult to withstand such a classroom.

Players make more money (at a younger age) – As difficult as it is to quantify, I really subscribe to the hunch that, as soon as he gets the money, a player’s drive to improve his game and dedicate himself to a team, begins to decline, This is also true for older players, but more likely for younger ones.

Players get more media attention – This is true for all players, but with younger players, the media’s attempt to vilify them translates into greater publicity and most likely, greater glory. We put them up on this pedestal, then wonder why we’re looking up at them. A recent player was heard to say, after a loss mind you, that he wondered whether or not his fabulous dunk would get on SportsCenter.

Players have agents – Agents have been around for years, but today’s version is more sly, more cunning, and much more intelligent all the way around. The irony is that it is probably inversely proportional to their clients. The influence these agents (and coaches et al) have on these kids is unprecedented.

Players get coddled at a younger age – This relates to the previous factors, but several of these kids become stars long before they reach the galaxy. Before Johnny attempts a shot in the NBA, he has a rich contract, a shoe deal, and a Web site.

Players jump around from team to team – This is also difficult to pinpoint. However, it’s common knowledge that players who don’t stay together long are less likely to develop as a cohesive unit. No cohesion on the court means little success.

What does all this add up to? I’m not really sure. My take is that some of these affect the game negatively, some contribute positively, and some just cancel each other out. My own concerns are with the quality of the game "on the court." Like an old boss of mine used to say: Don’t come to me with problems unless you have solutions." Well, here are mine, however radical they may be:

1. Abolish the three-point line. Some of you might be aghast at this, but hear me out. One reason scoring is down is that the three-point shot is a lower percentage shot. More players are launching these bombs than ever. One by-product of this, I believe, is that players no longer master the medium-range jumper. There are exceptions, such as Glenn Robinson of the Bucks. The result? Lower-percentage shooting all-around means fewer points.

2. Set the minimum age to be 22 or 23. I know the ACLU would jump all over this, but until Mr. Denial himself, David Stern, attacks this issue, his league will look more like Romper Room than ARP.

3. Adopt a five-second rule for "any" player standing around on offense. Not just the ball handler, as in college. I’ve had enough with two-man games with the remaining playing toy soldier. Perhaps the worst ramification of this is that most of those remaining three have their toes on the three-point line and are ill equipped to grab an offensive rebound should one of the other two players shoot up a brick. Let me put it this way, Doug Moe’s Denver Nuggets team of the early 80’s (although weak defensively) would run rings around teams today with their pass-and-cut, constant ball movement offense.

I’m sure I’ll think of more in the weeks, months and years ahead. Until then, try to enjoy what the NBA offers. I probably will, despite my criticisms.

Adios !!!!