The East is Least, the West is Best. Big Deal.

The "Basketball for Thought" is a commentary by Kris Gardner.

October 2000

The 2000 - 2001 NBA season begins on Halloween night; but, if you listen to the majority of media members, the season is already over. With Miami's Alonzo Mourning out for the season with a kidney disorder, no teams in the East have a chance to defeat the top teams in the West. Consequently, the race is over even though it hasn't even started. So, why am I looking forward to this season? It's basketball. Warts and all.

The West is so dominant members of the media have broached the topic of seeding teams in the Conference Finals to NBA Commissioner David Stern in order to have a more competitive matchup in the Finals. (A more competitive matchup would, supposedly, involve the Lakers battling either Portland or San Antonio instead of the Eastern Conference champion.)

Why is seeding being discussed? There's no guarantee a Finals' matchup between the top two teams in the East or the West would be better than a matchup between the two conference champs. Injuries could occur and completely disrupt the "dream matchup" or, quite simply, the games may not live up to the hype and result in a boring, yet quick, NBA Finals.

Where were all these discussions when the Bulls and Pistons were owning the Central Division and combining to win eight NBA Championships? Where were these questions when the Lakers were the only team in the West worth a damn; and, as a result, seemed to have built a permanent residence atop the Pacific Division and the Finals as well? Where were the questions when the Boston Celtics and the Philadelphia 76ers were clearly the two best teams in the entire NBA yet both teams would beat on each other in grueling seven game series and the winner would advance to face the ever present Lakers?

I'm not upset one bit. I'm just tired of the same discussions for the last 3 seasons. I've grown tired of the "East is least and the West is best" news. I agree the West has the top 3 teams in the league on paper; but, if any of those teams lose their star player(s) to injuries or illness, then the discussions will quickly change from the West is best to "Man, Vince Carter is amazing." or "I didn't realize Ray Allen was this good." or "Tracy McGrady is the total package." or "Kevin Garnett may be alone in Minnesota; but, he's one heck of a talent."

On and on the discussions could go because basketball is a great sport. There will always be dominant teams in the league; but, the most dominant team doesn't always win. If the dominant team always won, then stories about great upsets and underdogs slaying Goliath would never be written. Plus, people would start groaning and say "I don't like them. They win too much. I wish somebody else would win."

Of course I shouldn';t be surprised. The media latches onto a topic until a better topic comes along. Before Michael Jordan led the Bulls to title number one, people in the media questioned whether Mike could or would ever lead a team to a title. Jordan and the Bulls won six titles and some believe they would have won 8 straight if Mike didn't strike out at baseball for two seasons. Shaq had the same doubts swirling around him; but, now that he's won one, the media has tabbed the Lakers the "next dynasty".