The Miami Heat as Rorschach test

September, 14, 2010
9/14/10
2:48
PM ET
Abbott By Henry Abbott
ESPN.com
Archive
Two TrueHoop Network bloggers, John Krolik and Rob Mahoney, have held a debate at Pro Basketball Talk about whether or not the Miami Heat are good for NBA basketball.

The whole thing is solid, but Cavs: The Blog's Krolik really gets on a roll, to my way of thinking, in this passage:
Putting aside the fact that I'm supposed to be a bitter Cavs blogger (which I am, to an extent), I think the Heat are great for basketball. Of course I wish LeBron was still in Cleveland, but I can't deny that the Heat help the league as a whole. First and foremost, the NBA is still somewhat of a niche sport when compared to the NFL, MLB, college football, and even college basketball. And yet people have been talking about the NBA all summer long, and that's because of LeBron and the Heat.

Some people love this team, most people hate this team, but the important thing is that they care about this team. That's important, especially when you consider the looming CBA dispute/lockout next season. The NHL got relegated to Versus because it went away for a year and everybody realized they didn't really need it, even with Crosby and Ovechkin coming in -- if the Heat help the NBA avoid a similar fate, then long live the Heat.

Every possible scenario involving this team leads to more interest in the NBA. If they win the next three titles and become a dynasty, people won't be able to keep their eyes off of them. I remember a Stuart Scott chat in ESPN The Magazine a while back that went thusly:

(Random Person): My friend thinks Tiger Woods is bad for golf because he wins too much.

Stu: I think your friend is stupid.

I tend to agree with Stu on this one: dominance is fascinating. We're drawn to it, we love it. If the Heat can become a Bulls-like team that wins nearly every game, dominates every June, and become a team that makes every road game A Happening in whatever city they go to, that's great. The only time we're not drawn to dominance is when it's associated with a Sampras/Federer/Klitschko-like lack of personality or national identity, and the Heat certainly don't lack for that. Floyd Mayweather, perhaps the best technical boxer of his generation, didn't become a pay-per-view draw until he embraced the "Money" Mayweather persona and started pissing people off -- If "I'm taking my talents to Miami" is what keeps people interested in the aesthetic and technical brilliance of the best basketball players on the planet, then I'm all for it.

And if the Heat lose, it might be even better for the NBA -- the NBA keeps the eyeballs the Heat bring, a clear babyface/heel dynamic gets reinforced, and people get to keep believing that Truth, Justice, and the American Way always prevail in sports. In some ways, the current Heat are the best of both worlds for anyone marketing the NBA: they're going to be dominant force, and they haven't even won anything yet. For one season (at least), they provide something that might dominate, might lose, and everyone will want to see succeed or fail. Maybe they're the evolution of the NBA; maybe they're the embodiment of all the wrong ways to become true champions. They're a Rorschach blot of greatness, and everybody is seeing something interesting. ...

My general point is this: I don't know how this Heat experiment will turn out, but can you imagine anyone not watching?

Henry Abbott | email

TrueHoop, NBA

SPONSORED HEADLINES

Comments

You must be signed in to post a comment

Already have an account?