Cold On This Side of the Ocean
New Freedarko piece up at McSweeney's today. In it, I discuss the myth of The Association needing big market success in order to prosper, and I do a little pointless baseball-bashing.
Behind closed doors, a number of questions arose about this idea. Shoals suggested that big-market teams must be either "excellent" or "fucked up" to generate interest. I tried to recall the strange 2001-2003 Knicks, and decided that ultimately that wasn't the case because the games were still an "event" to attend. But by event I only mean that you could like sit next to Zach De La Rocha or something, which I'm not sure is the same thing as "generating interest." Clearly someone must recall this Knicks era better than I. Enlighten us.
Additionally Shoals posed the question of whether the permission of big-market teams to be shitty without punishment/losing intrigue then actually allows for small-market teams to flourish. Take this as you will.
[the only lesson I've learned in grad school is that to get out of answring a question you cannot answer, re-ask the question to those who initially posed it].
What I'd also like to acknowledge, and what I have said before, is that MIKE BIBBY COULD CARRY THE WHOLE LEAGUE ON HIS BACK RIGHT NOW. ADDITIONALLY, Every player on the Kings has a chip on his shoulder. Including Adelman. SAR has a vendetta against the entire league. Francisco Garcia is angry at life. Bonzi Wells listens to Danzig IV on his headphones while lying on his bed. For all the NCAA-hating we did in the last couple of weeks, I have to say that the paucity of recent NBA playoffs upsets compared to the abundance of (fake) upsets in college makes me thirst for a Deke-on-the-floor type scenario come June. Sacramento is the team to do it. The Kings' pedigree is pure post-season, and nobody wants to face Artest in seven games. Texas beware.