This article was written by Jim, Armstrong:
They announced the NBA All-Star rosters the other day and LeBron James wasn't on the Eastern Conference team.
Let me guess. Wardrobe malfunction.
Never thought I'd see the day, but, sure enough, it arrived Tuesday.
That's when David Stern's NBA failed to capitalize on a marketing opportunity. LeBron, the most exciting player in the game, not in the All-Star Game? The only way that thing will be worth watching is if the NFL gives them a hand with the halftime show.
Here's all you have to know about LeBron: The Cavaliers, known affectionately as the Cadavers before the King hit town -- lead the league in road attendance. And no, it isn't all about curiosity, about Nike's star-making machine, about seeing up close and personal whether the kid is worth the cash. It was at the beginning, but not any more.
Fact is, LeBron is much better much sooner than we could have imagined. He wasn't supposed to be dominating the league before the Iowa caucuses. The 2008 Iowa caucuses maybe, but not this year's Iowa caucuses.
Forget the standings. As we speak, the Cavs are one of the top half-dozen teams in the Eastern Conference. After a predictably slow start, they went into the weekend with eight wins in 12 games, including a road victory over the big, bad Pistons. It would have been nine of out of 12 if they hadn't slipped up in the final minute against the Lakers.
The kid's got game, but he couldn't get an All-Star invitation. The immortal Jamaal Magloire -- if I spelled it wrong, it only goes to prove my point -- is an All-Star and LeBron isn't? Doesn't make any sense.
The party line is Magloire is a center and the rules say the coaches have to vote for a backup center. This just in: The All-Star Game isn't about centers. The only way a center ever touches the ball is if he grabs a rebound. Then he throws it to a guard, who proceeds to throw it to a forward, who proceeds to dunk on the other end of the court.
No LeBron in the All-Star Game? Doesn't make any sense. Frankly, I thought if he showed up every day with a pulse and a posse, Stern's marketing musketeers would find a way to get him in the game. That's what the NBA does, isn't it? It creates brand names, makes stars, burns their pictures into the public consciousness.
You had to figure before the season started that, one way or another, LeBron would be in the All-Star Game. But here he is, averaging 21 points, six rebounds and six assists, and he'll be watching the game. Tell you what, kid. Let me know how it turns out.
I don't know, I don't think that LeBron is the most exciting player in the NBA. He has gotten the most hype and I think he MIGHT be the most exciting player someday but IF he were all that exciting, the FANS would have voted him in, wouldn't they? It seems that Mr. Armstrong, whoever that is, seems to forget that the majority of NBA fans are bandwagon fans (see Reality) who jump on whatever bandwagon is the most exciting at the time. That's the reason why there were so many Bulls fans six years ago and so few today. Same could be said with the Lakers, Kings, Spurs (okay, that's probably pushing it a bit), etc. A lot of fans are fans of whatever team happens to be hot at the time. IF LeBron was so exciting, fans would have voted him in, wouldn't they? Mr. Armstrong is holding the coaches responsible for the lack of LeBron but I think the fact is that IF LeBron were so darn exciting, then he would have already been there. LeBron IS exciting -- but there are a lot of other exciting players to watch who, I think, are doing something that matters instead of just accumulating stats on a bad team.
