It's a sentiment you often hear when sports journalists talk about the future prospects of traditionally strong teams like the Yankees or Cowboys: (insert sport) is better when (famous, traditionally strong team) is good. Or sometimes they go as far as saying (insert league) needs a strong (famous team). But I've got to ask, is that really true?
The evidence doesn't seem to bear it out. As noted earlier, baseball has faced declining popularity, in spite of nearly twenty years of continuous success for the Yankees. The NFL is doing well despite a long spell of mediocrity for the Cowboys. Hockey's minuscule American popularity is harder to gauge, but here in Canada it's as popular as ever, despite a generation of underwhelming play by the Canadiens and two generations of terrible play by the Leafs. As for the NBA, they experienced just about the biggest boost in popularity any league has ever experienced during the Jordan era, and that was on the back of a team that had little previous success, during which traditionally strong teams like the Celtics and Lakers were unremarkable.
I think the reason for this misguided belief in the need for strong classic teams is that it comes from journalists who are trying to tell stories that put today's events in a larger perspective. Fans and players, on the other hand, live in the moment, so they don't care. A great example was the recent "big three" Miami Heat. When three top players decided to team up to win championships, they didn't have a problem with doing it playing for a team younger than them. And fans didn't need any encouragement to love them or hate them for it, even if the team they are cheering for or against is one their parents or grandparents wouldn't recognize.
No comments:
Post a Comment