I don’t understand what David Stern and the NBA are trying to accomplish by having teams play games in Europe during the regular season. What is the appeal? The New York Knicks handily defeated the Detroit Pistons 102-87 today in London. So far, there have been eight NBA games played overseas in 2012-13, and I am still trying to figure out why the NBA would schedule those contests.
“The core of it is we are always looking for ways to expand the league and our presence. The commissioner has mentioned some specific ways. We have other tactical and strategic ways on the ground too. The buzz this game is creating in London gives us a good feel factor for what is possible,” noted Dan Markham, the NBA’s vice president of media distribution and emerging markets.
Personally, I just don’t see the positive aspect of playing regular season games out of the country. Players have to do a ridiculous amount of traveling as it is, and I doubt that they want to throw a trip to a different country into that mix, especially for just one game. And even if there are supporters of the NBA’s seemingly inevitable expansion, I ask: why are the Knicks playing the dismal Pistons? Why not have the Knicks play the Miami Heat or the Chicago Bulls? No, instead of having a head-to-head match of two top NBA teams, let’s send over the Pistons, who are 14-25, and whose best player is Greg Monroe. Does anyone foresee him becoming an international superstar like Kobe Bryant? Maybe I am just a little bit behind the times, but I would like the NBA to remain in America. Am I the only one? Follow Thomas Duffy on Twitter @TD_Knicks for articles, news, and all things NBA.