“The NBA is better when the New York Knicks are good” has been said for years, mainly when Madison Square Garden’s main attraction wasn’t relevant in the NBA standings. However, with the Jalen Brunson and Karl-Anthony Towns featured roster, the team has seen quite the surge in the media, to the point of being compared to a WNBA team.
“It’s all about eyeballs. Is Caitlin Clark good for women’s basketball? Of course she is,” a rival executive said. So the Knicks will be good for the men’s basketball. As much as I hate to say it.”
The previously quoted executive referred to the hype surrounding the Knicks and what it would mean for the NBA. However, the NBA’s popularity hadn’t waned, at least not regarding social media engagement and the latest TV contract. Ratings are down, but that’s also due to the hard-to-track streaming services. Nonetheless, the talk is hot around this current Knicks’ roster.
Between Brunson’s team-friendly contract and the recent trade for Towns, the buzz is as loud as it’s been since Patrick Ewing donned the blue and orange jerseys in the 1990s.
However, for someone to compare the Knicks to the Fever is an odd choice. For one, respectfully, even in the “dark years” of the franchise, the celebrities still hit the front row, and fans still went to the games. However, in fairness to Clark, she is a lightning rod of influence and skill, but again, the Knicks garnered attention even before the Leon Rose regime placed them back in the winning circle of the league.
The Knicks made Christmas Day lineups for years, even when they couldn’t muster a winning season.
Yes, the NBA is fun when the Knicks are good, but comparing them to a Fever team with one year of popularity is disrespectful to a franchise with decades of rich history.
Be the first to comment