Apparently, the NFL no longer holds a monopoly on ridiculous fines. In a surprisingly harsh move, NBA commissioner David Stern fined the San Antonio Spurs $250,000 for sending four of their big name players home in order to give them rest instead of playing them against the Miami Heat. The core issue seems to be that by resting the starters and the big name players, coach Greg Popovich was essentially screwing the fans over - he was taking away what the fans had paid to see.
And this brings up a big question: what exactly is the role of a professional sports team?
There's no real right or wrong answer, of course. Like most things in the world, it walks a balance. At the end of the day, sports exist for our entertainment as both players and spectators. We play because we have fun and we watch it for the same reason.
Still, an overwhelming percentage of us will never make money for playing sports or for writing about sports. For us, it's all pleasure, no business. So then, what is the role of a professional sports team? Is it to entertain us? Or is it, as many say, to try and win championships? What should their primary focus be - winning games or winning fans?
If the argument for the fine is that Popovich screwed over the fans and didn't give them what they paid for, we have to then look at it from two angles. The first being what do the fans pay for? Are they paying to see big name sports celebrities, or are they paying to see a good, competitive, entertaining sports match? I tend to think it is the latter. I would rather have a good game filled with no names than a bad game filled with big names. This, of course, is a matter of opinion. And you wonder what the game would have been if Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker were in that game. It could have been more entertaining, but you can't guarantee that because it could have also been worse. When you look at this case in particular, the Spurs played in Miami. The game came down to the final minute and was literally won in the final 30 seconds of the game. The Heat won in thrilling fashion 105-100. It was an exciting game, well worth the price of admission.
So why is Heir Stern fining San Antonio such an exorbitant amount for resting starters and claiming Popovich did a disservice to the fans? Take a look at what Stern said. "I apologize to all NBA fans. This was an unacceptable decision by the San Antonio Spurs and substantial sanctions will be forthcoming."
The only thing one can say in Stern's defense is that he made those comments before the game. Had he waited to see the outcome of the game, maybe this wouldn't be an issue (since, after all, it was one of the more entertaining games of the year). Still, he didn't have to make those comments in the first place. If he truly felt that the Spurs did a major disservice to the NBA fans, he should have waited to see the result of the decision first. (I don't remember him fining LeBron James for his "The Decision," which was a major slap in the face to pretty much any NBA fan except Heat fans.)
The second perspective is which fan base we are looking at this from. Stern claims this decision is unacceptable for all NBA fans. Is it though? So if we argue that people are paying more to see big names than good games, who are the fans that paid to watch the game? Miami Heat fans. Are you really going to tell me that Miami fans are paying $50 to see Tim Duncan or Manu Ginobli? No. They are paying to watch their Miami Heat stars LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Ray Allen. They saw James nearly get a triple double. They saw a game in which the Heat won on a late Ray Allen three pointer. The fans got what they paid for. They saw the stars they wanted to see. Maybe you have an argument if this is against the Washington Wizards or the Atlanta Hawks, but not against the Heat who is practically hoarding big name super stars right now.
What about Spurs fans? Their team had just gone on the road for six straight games and were playing their fourth game in five nights. And let's be honest here: the Spurs have a little recent history with maintaining health. Is David Stern apologizing to Spurs fans? I bet Spurs fans think Greg Popovich did absolutely the right thing. He's doing what it takes to ensure San Antonio's chances of a championship are as high as possible. He's doing right by Spurs fans. And Stern claims to be apologizing to "all NBA fans." Really? Do Celtics fans really care about this? Do Lakers fans? Would these fans feel their coach was doing right by them if they rested their starters in order to give the team the best chance of reaching the post season?
Finally, this is the NBA. Anyone playing in that game is top tier talent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there. That is why - despite resting their starters - San Antonio still played a competitive game against the star studded Miami Heat. Fining the Spurs for resting their big name players is a slap in the face to any NBA player who is not considered a super star. You can look at a guy like Kendrick Perkins, for example. He's not a super star player - no one is paying to see him play - but he has been a critical piece of the puzzle for Boston and Oklahoma City. How insulting must it be to a Spurs bench player who came out, performed extremely well, gave the fans a great game, and are now getting bashed solely because they don't have the same name recognition?
Which reminds me: you never know what can happen in these games. Maybe someone comes off the bench and steps up. Maybe the coach finds another key role player that he can start to use more. Practice isn't the same thing as game time. There are plenty of benefits for the team, the players, and the fans to resting starters from time to time.
And frankly, if Stern is going to fine the Spurs for resting star players because it's not entertaining to fans, he might as well just kick the Washington Wizards out of the league. How is that franchise not a disservice to NBA fans?
To Popovich's credit, he has acknowledged that he can see both side. He even admitted that if he were taking his son to see a basketball game, he would hope they all had their star players on the court. Still, he was ultimately trying to do what was best for his team. It is hard to imagine that anyone thinks this was a bad call for the health of the team.
Sports can't exist just to win though. Granted, it already is just its own self-fulfilling circle of importance - winning is everything, you always play to win, your greatness is determined by wins, et cetera. Still, it has to be about more than just winning or it would never be fun for players or more importantly, the fans. No one ever seems to have an issue when coaches rest starters at the end of a season to gear up for a playoff run. That is generally "acceptable" because it - theoretically - helps them in the post season. So why is this any different? The logic is exactly the same: rest starters when we can, maintain health throughout the regular season as best we can, win as many games as we can. The Spurs are playing not just for the playoffs, but will likely be looking at a high seeding for home court advantage. Or what about when coaches bench players for "disciplinary reasons"? Did the 76ers get fined for benching super star Allen Iverson just for missing practice? Is that a cause worthy of ensuring fans don't see the stars they paid for?
At the end of the day, sports teams have two purposes - to provide entertainment (which includes providing top talent) and to win championships. They must strike that balance. Greg Popovich might not have provided name recognition against the Heat, but he provided top talent that was competitive. He provided entertainment. And he was doing what he thought he needed to provide the second purpose. Further, there is nothing in the rules that says a coach cannot rest players. If you suddenly say that you can't do that, what is to stop Popovich from saying, "Oh, well Duncan was late to practice so I sent him home." Or "Parker twisted his knee in practice, so I sent him home." At least Popovich was honest. "We have played a lot and have been away from home. I wanted them to get a head start on rest." But he clearly didn't give up that game. The San Antonio players and coaches still tried to win that game (even if Pop made a big error by not calling a time out late in the game). The Spurs broke no rules. The home crowd got to see the stars they wanted to see. And all NBA fans got an incredibly entertaining game.
And David Stern is fining someone as a result. Yeah. Makes sense to me. You don't have to like what he did - there are legitimate arguments against it given the dual nature of the league's purposes. Still, he did nothing illegal and no one suffered any harm from it. There shouldn't be a fine, never mind a quarter million dollar fine.
Better watch out, Roger Goodell. You've got competition.
No comments:
Post a Comment