Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I'm watching the 30 for 30 on Reggie Miller and it reminds me of the great Pacers/Knicks rivalry and others like Pistons/Celtics, Heat/Knicks, Pistons/Bulls, Knicks/Bulls, Lakers/Celtics, etc. Do you think the NBA still has those type of rivalries? As a Duke fan, rivalries are what get my blood pumping, but for a while now, the NBA has been void of quality rivalries, IMO. Has the league been cleaned up, sophisticated and civilized to a degree where it's hard to develop rivalries? Maybe free agency/TV contracts/sponsors take away some of grittiness?
I don't think yesterday's NBA rivalries were much different from today's. They are (were) both fleeting. The Bulls and Pistons had a rivalry for about two seasons. The only real "rivalry" the NBA has, imo, is between the Celtics and Lakers, and we see how much of a rivalry that is in 2016. Rivalries simply come and go with the players.
The Bulls and Heat had a "rivalry" for about 1.5 seasons when Joakim Noah called the Heat "Hollywood as hell." D. Rose then got hurt, then Lebron left, the Heat started sucking, then Noah started getting hurt, and then that whole thing completely fizzled away.
NBA rivalries generally can't last beyond a few seasons. It helps to be in a large media market. Knicks-Bulls is a lot easier to market than Hornets-Magic. Each team needs to have a superstar since NBA rivalries are thought of in terms of individual matchups as much as team matchups. And it also helps to stick a microphone in a player's face and have him make a controversial statement the media can seize on and run with (i.e., "Hollywood as hell" or "Bird only won MVP because he's White" or "I hope the locker room in Cleveland still smells like champagne," etc.). Most importantly, players need to stay on the same team and remain healthy, otherwise the general public won't pay attention.
Today's NBA has some of the makings of great rivalries. You've got competitive teams with superstars (Cavs, Clippers, Thunder, Warriors). You've got some young bucks like the Blazers that can hopefully provide more competition in the West over the next few seasons. You've got the disses and slights ("Steph is a shooter. He ain't nothing I haven't seen before already"). Now we just need good games to actually transpire on the court.
I don't think yesterday's NBA rivalries were much different from today's. They are (were) both fleeting. The Bulls and Pistons had a rivalry for about two seasons. The only real "rivalry" the NBA has, imo, is between the Celtics and Lakers,
Sorry but the Lakers Celtics rivalries were just as competitive as they are today. Then there was Boston vs Philly, Chicago vs. Detroit, Miami vs Orlando, Miami vs Atlanta, and Boston vs the world that went on forever or at least until Chicago vs the world replaced them. A lot of great basketball.
Quote:
NBA rivalries generally can't last beyond a few seasons.
Well that isn't true. Boston vs the world started in 1949 and lasted until they were finally beaten by Chicago in 1991 and then in turn we have the Chicago vs the world era that began in 1988 and lasted until 2016 this year we have Curry and Chicago who could start another era of undisputed dominance.
Quote:
Today's NBA has some of the makings of great rivalries. You've got competitive teams with superstars (Cavs, Clippers, Thunder, Warriors). You've got some young bucks like the Blazers that can hopefully provide more competition in the West over the next few seasons. You've got the disses and slights ("Steph is a shooter. He ain't nothing I haven't seen before already"). Now we just need good games to actually transpire on the court.
I might be a minority in this but I think that Curry and San Antonio have drastically changed the course of the game, strong forwards a still important are 7' centers, while still important, not nearly as important as an overqualified, shooting guard or small forward. Driving to the rim is still fun to watch but it isn't as jaw dropping as a well thrown up half court three that doesn't have any contact with the rim.
So I'm watching the 30 for 30 on Reggie Miller and it reminds me of the great Pacers/Knicks rivalry and others like Pistons/Celtics, Heat/Knicks, Pistons/Bulls, Knicks/Bulls, Lakers/Celtics, etc. Do you think the NBA still has those type of rivalries? ..
No, I don't.
The teams that stay on top in their divisions tend to develop rivalries, and not as many teams seem to stay on top for as long these days. However, I was also a bigger fan back then, so that may color my perception.
Speaking of Duke and 30 for 30, I just watched "I hate Christian Laettner" for the first time recently.
Good show. I didn't "hate" him, just didn't care for Duke, or his image.
Well that isn't true. Boston vs the world started in 1949 and lasted until they were finally beaten by Chicago in 1991 and then in turn we have the Chicago vs the world era that began in 1988 and lasted until 2016 this year we have Curry and Chicago who could start another era of undisputed dominance.
I have no idea what you mean by "vs the world." I am talking about rivalries like Cowboys/Redskins, Carolina/Duke, Yankees/Sox, etc. There's a lot of media attention and fanfare over those rivalries even when those teams are in the basement.
Nobody thought about a Lakers/Celtics rivalry again until both teams were actually good. I actually grew up in Philly, as a Sixers fan, and can't remember anyone ever putting "Sixers," "Celtics," and "rivalry" in the same sentence together. Few people born before the late 70s ever experienced much of a rivalry between those two teams. And as you can see, once they started sucking, that rivalry clearly came to an end.
Then you look at the Eagle and Giants and what that rivalry means to both fanbases. The rivalry simply doesn't evaporate after a few players retire or get traded. We are sworn enemies until the very end.
One thing that stuck out to me was when former 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr. was introducing “The Natural” Fred Dean (beast of a defensive end), and every time he mentioned Dean doing something against the Cowboys, the Redskins fans gave a huge cheer. It didn’t matter that Dean didn’t even play for their team — so long as he played his part in taking down the hated Cowboys, he was a hero in their eyes.
Cowboys/Redskins is arguably the NFL’s biggest rivalry, with Raiders/Chiefs and Bears/Packers right up there as well. Other sports like college football (Alabama/Auburn, Ohio State/Michigan, Army/Navy), college basketball (Duke/Carolina, Kentucky/Indiana, Syracuse/Georgetown) and Major League Baseball (Yankees/Red Sox, Giants/Dodgers, Cubs/Cardinals) have similarly long-standing and fierce rivalries, but you don’t really see that so much in the NBA.
NBA rivalries are more timely than anything: two teams that are at the top of their division or conference at the moment will have a string of playoff battles and build some history, but it’s not nearly the same atmosphere of undying bitterness that you see in the NFL and other sports, and whatever bad blood is there usually dissipates as soon as one team falls out of playoff contention. We’ve seen it happen with Pistons/Bulls, Kings/Lakers, Bulls/Knicks and others.
Honestly I think it's harder to foster rivalries in pro sports as it is.
Unlike college, where state and regional pride take hold and the rivalries date back much further, pro rivalries are based more around certain players who dont like each other being good at the same time.
Honestly I think it's harder to foster rivalries in pro sports as it is.
Unlike college, where state and regional pride take hold and the rivalries date back much further, pro rivalries are based more around certain players who dont like each other being good at the same time.
But the Dallas Cowboys have only been around since 1960. The Cowboys and Redskins started hating each other from Day 1.
You're probably not going to see anything like this before a Celtics-Lakers regular season game.
I don't think yesterday's NBA rivalries were much different from today's. They are (were) both fleeting. The Bulls and Pistons had a rivalry for about two seasons. The only real "rivalry" the NBA has, imo, is between the Celtics and Lakers, and we see how much of a rivalry that is in 2016. Rivalries simply come and go with the players.
The Bulls and Heat had a "rivalry" for about 1.5 seasons when Joakim Noah called the Heat "Hollywood as hell." D. Rose then got hurt, then Lebron left, the Heat started sucking, then Noah started getting hurt, and then that whole thing completely fizzled away.
NBA rivalries generally can't last beyond a few seasons. It helps to be in a large media market. Knicks-Bulls is a lot easier to market than Hornets-Magic. Each team needs to have a superstar since NBA rivalries are thought of in terms of individual matchups as much as team matchups. And it also helps to stick a microphone in a player's face and have him make a controversial statement the media can seize on and run with (i.e., "Hollywood as hell" or "Bird only won MVP because he's White" or "I hope the locker room in Cleveland still smells like champagne," etc.). Most importantly, players need to stay on the same team and remain healthy, otherwise the general public won't pay attention.
Today's NBA has some of the makings of great rivalries. You've got competitive teams with superstars (Cavs, Clippers, Thunder, Warriors). You've got some young bucks like the Blazers that can hopefully provide more competition in the West over the next few seasons. You've got the disses and slights ("Steph is a shooter. He ain't nothing I haven't seen before already"). Now we just need good games to actually transpire on the court.
But the question is - were the fleeting rivalries better than they are today? Of course, some of those I listed don't go back 80 years like a Duke vs UNC, but nonetheless, they were far more intriguing rivalries than we see today.
Bulls vs Pistons - they met in the playoffs 4 straight years. Everybody knows the history behind that rivalry. Jordan Rules, physical play, grinding defense, Pistons not liking Jordan, NBA's best player trying to get over the hill. What's comparable nowadays?
Lakers vs Celtics....need I say more? 80s Lakers vs Celtics is probably the most well known rivalry in NBA history. Two of the best teams ever with GOAT candidates (with a history going back to college) meeting in the finals 3x in four years. Any comparison in the current NBA? Think of prime Lebron and Kobe meeting 3 of 4 years in the Finals. It would be EPIC.
Pacers vs Knicks - just watch the 30 for 30 on Reggie. They met in the playoffs 6x between 1993-2000. You had physicality, fights, Spike Lee, MSG atmosphere, Reggie's choke sign, unfiltered trash talk (unlike nowadays), multiple 7 games series, etc. What would you compare it to in the last 10-15 years?
Pistons vs Celtics - it wasn't just Isiah and Rodman saying Bird was a overrated white guy. However that is a HUGE storyline considering Bird was the NBA's best player at the time. Imagine if players said something like that today? They'd probably be kicked out of the league. There was certainly a sorta white vs black undertone considering the Celtics were led by Bird/McHale/Walton/Ainge, etc. they met in the playoffs FIVE times. What about Bird and Laimbeer slugging it out? What about one of the most famous plays in NBA history where Bird steals Isiah's inbounds pass and dishes it to Dennis johnson for the game winner? Detroit was ready to take a 3-2 lead on the Celtics. Bird and Laimbeer STILL don't like each other. What about Parrish punching Laimbeer in '87? Again, what would you compare this rivalry to in todays NBA?
....then you have Heat/Knicks...Sports Illustrated rated it as the 3rd best NBA rivalry. They were the first two teams to meet FOUR YEARS IN A ROW in the playoffs with each series going 7 games. This might be the last of the great NBA rivalries, IMO.
I'd be interested in hearing what everyone thinks are the modern equivalent to these rivalries...
Last edited by eddiehaskell; 05-22-2016 at 08:44 PM..
So I'm watching the 30 for 30 on Reggie Miller and it reminds me of the great Pacers/Knicks rivalry and others like Pistons/Celtics, Heat/Knicks, Pistons/Bulls, Knicks/Bulls, Lakers/Celtics, etc. Do you think the NBA still has those type of rivalries? As a Duke fan, rivalries are what get my blood pumping, but for a while now, the NBA has been void of quality rivalries, IMO. Has the league been cleaned up, sophisticated and civilized to a degree where it's hard to develop rivalries? Maybe free agency/TV contracts/sponsors take away some of grittiness?
Players don't stay with teams long enough to have a real rivalry. Social media can link all of the players. Definitely not the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
