By Andrew J. SchafferA decade ago this month, when the NBA Finals were going to begin, the league was still reeling from the devastating Super Bowl collapse and a rash of injury-related injuries that cost teams, coaches and players millions of dollars.
In the wake of that catastrophe, some of the most important decisions in sports history were being made in the offseason, and they included the league’s expansion to Las Vegas, a new broadcast deal and the decision to make the All-Star Game a nationally televised event.
That was a difficult moment in American sports history.
As we now know, it was the worst moment in sports because the league has been so thoroughly damaged by injuries.
The NBA has not only recovered but has expanded in a number of ways, including the addition of the NBA 2K franchise, the NBA D-League, NBA All-Stars and the NBA TV rights.
The league also has a new television deal with ESPN, which has led to more opportunities for the league to show more games and more players on its broadcasts.
However, as we now learn, that’s not enough.
The league has yet to come to grips with the fallout from the Super Bowl, which forced the league into a decision to move the first All-star Game to a larger venue and the introduction of a TV deal that is now worth nearly $1 billion a year.
Some have argued that a bigger venue would have provided an even greater platform for players to showcase their skills and have an even larger impact on the game.
The New York Times recently wrote that the All, featuring more than 1,000 players from the current and past All-stars, “could not be held in New York.”
In response, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, Adam Silver, called the All “a disgrace.”
But as we look back at the All in this decade, we can understand why Silver was so concerned about it being played in New England.
The New York City venue is much bigger than the one in Miami, where the All was played in 2007.
And while the All is played in a larger arena, it is in a smaller one, the Forum.
It’s not a big arena that will be crowded with fans.
In fact, it’s one that is not very well equipped to handle the many, many thousands of people who will show up.
It is also not a huge arena that has been built with the most modern equipment.
The Forum is smaller than the New York Knicks’ arena, Madison Square Garden.
It has not been renovated, and it is not one that would support a large number of players, many of whom will be competing for the NBA championship.
So why the reluctance to host the All?
Some players argue that it would have made more sense for the All to be played in the city, but it’s clear that the league did not want to risk that.
Silver did not hesitate to call the All the “worst ever All-Time.”
In a recent interview with Sports Illustrated, Silver said that he has “never regretted” moving the All.
He said that his main concerns were “the players, the fans, the sponsors and the media.”
In the interview, Silver also called the decision “unwise,” but added that the decision was not a “necessity.”
He added that he was “not opposed to it” and said that it was an option the league considered when the All had been postponed.
I think the league made a terrible decision, because there are so many things that I think are wrong with it.
Adam Silver said he “did not regret” moving to New York.
And he says the All could not be played.
But he said he was not opposed to the idea, either.
The Times’ Nick Baumgardner has more.
This article originally appeared at National Review Online.