The NBA's decision to "spread its five-game, first-
round series over a two-week period doesn't border on the
ridiculous -- it stands as the very example of idiocy,"
according to Michael Murphy of the HOUSTON CHRONICLE.
Sonics coach Paul Westphal: "I don't think it was a schedule
made by the basketball people" (HOUSTON CHRONICLE, 4/23).
Heat coach Pat Riley: "We are subject to the gods of
television, but to stretch this out over two weeks is
absolutely insane" (AP, 4/21). In Boston, Peter May: "I
always thought the goal of television was to increase viewer
interest in the playoffs. ... But where was the voice of
reason when this first-round schedule was decided? The NBA
is not a league that plays every third day. It's a league
that plays three games in four days, four days in five, back
to back" (BOSTON GLOBE, 4/23). NEWSDAY's Steve Zipay wrote
the first round could run "as long as Wimbledon": "That
makes it awfully tough to maintain any daily buzz" (NEWSDAY,
4/21). In Philadelphia, Bill Lyon: "The NBA postseason is
going to make the 100 Years War look like it was set on
fast-forward. The irony is, TV has mandated this because
the networks' numbers show that a distressingly increasing
number of you really don't care all that much any more. So
their solution is to drag it out. Clever. Like giving
amphetamines to an insomniac" (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 4/22).
In Richmond, Jerry Lindquist called the schedule change
"beyond dumb. ... Whatever momentum a really good game
builds can be lost in the extended time off" (RICHMOND
TIMES-DISPATCH, 4/24). FSN's Jim Rome: "This is way over
the top. Just as the Lakers are lifting the Larry O'Brien
Trophy, they'll be loading the buses to get them to training
camp" ("Last Word," 4/24). In Boston, Bob Ryan called the
schedules "in some cases, so preposterous as to be
laughable": "We might have a new president before the first
round is over. ... This is pure panic on everyone's part.
... Attention David Stern: Your league was a little more
entertaining this season, but it is still in an artistic
recession, OK? Accept it" (BOSTON GLOBE, 4/22).
STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT? In N.Y., Bob Raissman wrote that
while the league and NBC is touting Raptors F Vince Carter,
"Simply put, Carter has not been able to retrieve the NBA's
national TV ratings from the toilet. The league and the
networks tried to manufacture a star and have done it
prematurely" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 4/23). NBC's Peter Vecsey,
previewing the Raptors-Knicks series: "Then you've got Vince
Carter, who is anointed as the most exciting player in
basketball. How do I know that? Because NBC has anointed
him that" (NBC, 4/22). NEWSDAY's Shaun Powell: "Pardon me
for resisting any urge to go totally Vinsane, but unless
Carter actually wins something, he'll be just ... a
desperate network and league's creation" (NEWSDAY, 4/23). In
Atlanta, Mark Bradley questioned the NBA's marketing
emphasis on individual players, notably Carter, and not
teams. Bradley: "Stars matter. Teams matter more. That is
where the contemporary NBA needs work. ... The Lakers could
make the NBA hot again in a way that Carter by himself
cannot" (ATLANTA CONSTITUTION, 4/22).
