Jim Alexander: We are a little more than a week away from the Super Bowl – or, as merchants desperately trying to latch onto arguably this country’s biggest event without running afoul of trademark restrictions will call it, the “Big Game.” (Which makes me wonder, among other things, if James Worthy shouldn’t have trademarked “Big Game James.” He could make some serious coin from all of these unauthorized mentions.)
And I was reminded this week of another bit of trademark business. The Chiefs, as we all know, are going for a third straight title. But if they want to use the term “three-peat” on any official gear, they’d better make their checks and Zelle deposits and the like payable to Pat Riley. Riles trademarked the term after the Lakers’ back-to-back championships in ‘87 and ‘88 – he acknowledges Byron Scott came up with the term, but he was smart enough to glom onto it.
And while Riley’s Lakers didn’t win three in a row, when Phil Jackson’s Bulls did so twice in the ‘90s, Riles indeed got paid, approximately $300,000 in licensing and royalty fees in 1993, according to Finance Monthly, as reported by the Palm Beach Post, and nearly $600,000 in 1998. And when Jackson’s Lakers won three straight in 2000, ‘01 and ‘02, Riley profited again. (I’ve got to think, given the competition between the two, Riley really enjoyed cashing those checks.)
I guess one question, as the Super Bowl hype machine gears up for Chiefs-Eagles next week, is whether the public will root for or against the Chiefs in their quest for a three- … um, third straight championship. (And, as noted by Darren Haynes on Channel 9’s Sports Central earlier this week, if you’re a Lakers fan you’ve got to be rooting against it. After all, the last three-time champs were – all together, now – Jackson’s Lakers in 2003.)
Wonder who Riley’s rooting for.
Mirjam Swanson: Probably for someone to solve his Jimmy Butler problem.
As for L.A.’s rooting interests? Hmmm.
I think Dodgers fans might end up sharing a bond with Chiefs supporters, groups who understand the whole hate-us-’cause-they-ain’t-us is real and what it means to be living large and rent-free in everyone’s heads.
They took different routes to that destination, of course – the free-spending Dodgers get to splurge, Kansas City has to operate within the confines of the NFL’s supposed parity-inducing guidelines.
One of the things they both have in common: great coaches. On the football side, Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes are the new Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. The Dodgers got Dave Roberts and, well, Shohei and Mookie and Freddie and … yeah.
I don’t know if Dodgers fans feel that connection though. They might also be tired of seeing Kansas City get out of each and every jam unscathed, as though the Chiefs are the stars’ of a predictable network procedural.
Maybe they will, though, when the Dodgers are, themselves, working on earning more royalties for Riley (who, by the way, is genius for that!)
Jim: Wouldn’t that cause heads to explode from coast to coast? (And by the way, you nailed it this morning with the Dave Roberts column. I’ve got to think that they’re close to finalizing the deal that Roberts deserves to stay in Dodger blue for a long, long time. These are smart guys, and they understand how much Roberts’ ability to manage people means to the franchise.)
Anyway, on to a peculiar NBA matter. Adam Silver went on record on the Dan Patrick radio show as saying he’s in favor of reducing games from 12-minute quarters to 10. I’m still trying to figure out where this came from. “As we get more involved in global basketball, the NBA is the only league that plays 48 minutes. And I would be – I am – a fan of four 10-minute quarters,” Silver said, then adding: “I’m not sure that many others are. Putting aside what it means for records and things like that, yeah, I think that a two-hour format for a game is more consistent with modern television habits.”
Honestly, time of game is not the NBA’s problem. In fact, the ESPN story on Silver’s remarks noted that game times this year average 2:16, “nearly identical to the past 15 seasons (2:15, according to data from ESPN Research).”
Does he think fewer minutes will reduce the wear and tear on the athletes? Somehow I don’t think that’s where this idea is coming from – I’m guessing it’s more of a marketing concept. But if I’m representing one of the networks that shelled out a combined $76 billion over the next 11 years for rights to NBA games, I would think that extra eight minutes a game, and the resulting commercial time, would be pretty important in terms of defraying those costs.
What’s your take, Mirjam?
Mirjam: I think … it would help secure LeBron’s scoring record.
I’ve always thought WNBA games should be longer, because people look at them – they’re 40 minutes – and think the women don’t score much. But they’re playing eight fewer minutes, so … those Aces teams that were scoring 100-plus every game? Imagine what they’d do in 48 minutes.
Otherwise, though, you’re right: What?!
Of all the issues that might be facing the NBA, I hadn’t heard anyone mention length of games. That was baseball’s problem, Adam, not yours.
And if it really irks him, then besides shortening the game clock – which would also suppress the market for bench players, you’d think – there are other ways to go about it. How about fewer/shorter reviews, ‘cause those are a problem. Or, if you must, take away a timeout. Or shoot, do what the G League has been trying and make free throws in the first 46 minutes a free THROW, singular, but still worth two points.
That’d help when James Harden and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander – expert foul-bait artists – visit the line 14, 15, 16 times per game… I don’t think of that so much as a time-of-play issue, but an aesthetic one: It’s not as fun to watch players shoot free throws instead of doing anything else on the a basketball court.
I also don’t think the game is broken because the volume of 3-point shooting is so high, I think that’s less a problem because the games are often still exciting and entertaining. There are so many compelling athletes and personalities playing every night. At least to me, a basketball fan.
So maybe the marketing could improve – and I’m not talking about Chuck and his “Inside the NBA” hosts, whose curmudgeonly banter is delightful, which is why so many other similar shows want to copy it.
But the NBA’s reputation as a load-balance-heavy league hasn’t helped it, I don’t think. The fact that ESPN turned transactions into a source of entertainment and intrigue that trumped the games always felt like a problem to me – and has manifested as one now that the league and its players have severely slowed that market with their CBA and all its stringent and punitive rules. Also, yeah, I think they likely did turn off some people in a divided audience when the league took a political stance around 2020, but that was to be expected so I respect it.
The basketball, though? The basketball is fun! More fun than in some eras of the past, when it really was iso-driven, or when it was just a low-scoring defensive slugfest. If you’ve been turned off and tuned out for whatever reason, I implore you: Try it, you’ll like it.
Jim: My suggestion? Eliminate back-to-backs, even if it means reducing the schedule by a few games or so. I know, heresy. But if you want teams and players at their best every game, reducing the schedule from 82 games to 76 makes more sense than playing eight minutes less.
And now I’m going to turn my attention to … well, transactions.
We’ve all been talking for weeks about what the Lakers need to do, or need to acquire, to compete for a championship. (I still don’t know that there’s anything out there that would make giving up one or both of those future first-rounders worth it.) But what about the Clippers? How close are they to legit championship contention, and is there a deal out there that they can make before next Thursday’s deadline that could make a difference?
Watching them last night against San Antonio, and especially the way they pulled away at the end, I’m wondering if the team they have right now, healthy and with a fully functional Kawhi Leonard, might be enough to make a serious playoff run. It’s always wise to hedge with a statement like that, true, just because of the franchise’s history of bad breaks and untimely injuries. But I like the way this team is playing, I like the balance on the roster, and I am willing to admit that Harden is a better fit on this team. I was dubious when they first got him, and maybe some of that evolution is because of changes on the roster between then and now. (Nothing personal, Paul George and Russell Westbrook.)
This roster just seems more in sync. When they reached the conference final in 2021 it almost felt like there was a smoke-and-mirrors element to it, especially with Kawhi having just gotten hurt again (and to be honest, some of that smoke and mirrors involved the team’s attempt to downplay what turned out to be a far more serious injury than they let on). This would be a more monumental climb given the beastly nature of the Western Conference.
But I think it’s doable.
Mirjam: With Kawhi, this team can absolutely make a run.
Harden really has it going, Norman Powell and Ivica Zubac are much better than anyone ever gave them credit for – shoot, they both would deserve it if they were added to the All-Star roster this year. Amir Coffey has been crazy efficient. Derrick Jones Jr. and Kris Dunn (and defensive-minded assistant coach Jeff Van Gundy) have been everything Clippers fans could’ve dreamed of. And, oh yeah, it’s Tyronn Lue running the show.
With Kawhi, that team could be very scary.
But they absolutely would need Kawhi to get really deep into the postseason.
And, after his ailing knee sidelined him early in the postseason each of the past two years, I would have to see Kawhi’s body stand up to an intense playoff pounding to believe it. And I want to see it, don’t get me wrong. But I wouldn’t go to FanDuel or whatever and put money on it.
That’s not to say they can’t improve this roster. Zubac has been a monster this season, the 7-footer is averaging 15 and 13 this season, and he isn’t even keen on taking games off, whether he’s hurt or could use rest. Still, he could use some dependable backup. And the Clippers’ current backup post presences – Mo Bamba and Kai Jones – ain’t it.
Like the Lakers, they’re in the market for a good center off the bench.
And like the Lakers, if the Clippers’ stars are healthy I don’t think a real run is out of the question.
Will we see it? From either team? Anything is possible with the right matchup and good health and a little bit of magic. But all the same, I’m not holding my breath.