By John McMullen
Philadelphia, PA - Last time I looked, David Stern wasn't Bud Selig, and the NBA All-Star Game doesn't count for anything, save the entertainment of the fans who enjoy watching the game's best players in a
free-wheeling environment.
Yet, some insist the NBA office in New York let out a collective sigh of
relief when the Suns' Steve Nash overtook Houston's Tracy McGrady in fan
voting Thursday to earn a starting spot on the Western Conference All-Star
team.
The thought process went something like this: McGrady has been banished by the
Rockets after playing just 45 minutes all season, a number Golden State's
Monta Ellis usually beats on a nightly basis. So, having the former scoring
champion show up in Dallas with the "real" All-Stars would be a black eye to
the league.
Really?
I'm not denying the NBA is thrilled McGrady won't be in north Texas, but I'm
also not sure why the league, or anyone else for that matter, cares.
Have I missed some underlying importance attached to the All-Star game?
If the fans want to see Tracy McGrady play, so be it. Same for Philadelphia's
Allen Iverson, who was able to hold off Orlando's Vince Carter to secure a
spot on the Eastern Conference team despite playing just 19 games for a woeful
76ers team.
Granted, players take the honor, if not the game, seriously and if Iverson
appears, that means one legitimate All-Star won't be in Arlington, Tex. come
Feb. 14.
That's a shame but no one is saying that Iverson is a better player at this
point or more deserving of an All-Star berth than guys like Rajon Rondo, Ray
Allen and Joe Johnson. Same goes for McGrady and players like Chris Paul,
Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Brandon Roy.
That said, it's the fans that will be shelling out $75 bucks just to park at
Jerry Jones' palace in Dallas. Shouldn't they have the right to watch the
players they want, even if we all know there are better alternatives?
In the West, Dirk Nowitzki or Kevin Durant should be starting over Tim Duncan,
and Paul is a better option opposite Kobe Bryant than Nash. You could even
argue the Los Angeles Clippers' Chris Kaman, who wasn't among the top 10 vote-
getters at center, is a better option in the pivot than Phoenix's Amar'e
Stoudemire.
In the East, perennial All-Star Kevin Garnett has been sidelined for the last
10 games while Toronto's Chris Bosh keeps putting up double-doubles.
Fans vote for who they want to see and more often than not, it's sizzle over
substance, it's reputation over production. And, there is nothing wrong with
that.
I really enjoy 30 Rock, the brilliant NBC comedy that has won the Emmy for
Outstanding Comedy Series in 2007, 2008 and 2009. But, sometimes I want to
kick back and watch Jersey Shore, a train wreck of a show that may be one of
the seven signs of the Apocalypse.
If you asked me to list the best 100 shows on television today, Jersey Shore
isn't making the list, but that doesn't mean I'm not stopping the clicker when
I see "Snookie" and "The Situation" on the screen.
Moral of the story?
Sometimes the best option isn't the most entertaining option -- sometimes it
is. Either way, you are paying the bills and you make the decisions.
That should never change.
No comments:
Post a Comment