I think the author is pointing out the various problems that the NBA has by proposing the obviously ludicrous idea that Kobe would be a good commissioner. All the comments about "flyover" markets, "lovable losers" and the particularly offensive "hick town" one aren't really the author's ideas. They are ideas that are already out there, in some of the NBA cities across the country that have a warped sense of entitlement because they are the "big" markets. In fact, these ideas are probably in the league's main office too. I think that the main premise of article might be the suggestion that the league is already being run by Kobe and others like him (Stern).

Ultimately, the NBA has an image problem. I believe that in order to appeal to a larger base of fans like the NFL does, it needs to roll up its sleeves and go bowling or do a shot of Crown with a beer chaser. For the same inexplicable reason that people vote for a presidential candidate who they feel they can have a beer and hotdog with, the NFL is successful and the NBA can't be. Football has the blue-collar, lunch pail appeal with a nice healthy touch of glamour and interesting characters. The NBA, as some other postings suggest, is a bit "elitist." You watch a big ol' lineman walking into the stadium, you might get an image of a steelworker, a farmer, etc. You see an NBA player walking into the arena, the only image you get is that of an aloof, multi-gazzilionaire who wouldn't give an autograph if you asked. That's the image that the NBA touts. (I know some of you will say that there is also an inner-city or street image that some players are successful with, but the NBA is trying to suppress this as much as possible.)

Even this NBA Finals shows this. They are marketing the heck out of the whole history and pedigree of these two teams - the "rivalry." I'm just not buying it. Most of the key players in this series have only just joined their teams. For some, game 1 of the series was the first time they had ever played against each other this year. It is definitely not Magic vs. Bird, or Wilt vs. Russell. I haven't seen any clothes-lines on nerdy forward going to the hoop. That would make it a rivalry. It's hard to care enough for one side of this series because of the aforementioned Kobe, so it's just not that interesting to me. I'm still watching because I like good hoops - Boston plays great team D and the Lakers in stretches play great O, but Stern, don't try to sell me something that just aint there.

Nice post, but I think you missed a major point.

Owners of NFL franchises are guaranteed a degree of profitability regardless of their location. In essence, the NFL, as a league, is run like socialism. Every team benefits from the success of the league as a whole.

The NBA has a soft cap and luxury tax. They also have a rigidly controlled rookie scale for salaries. That creates a financial incentive for owners to minimize salary commitments by pawning off established veterans for draft picks and players still in their rookie scale.

Throw in the fact that outcomes are more predictable in basketball than in any other professional sport, that biases the competitive balance to rich teams, so long as they're well managed (looking at you Dolan!). Fans perceive this imbalance pretty easily. Lower expectations mean lower turnout and general fan indifference.

The inherent unpredictability (due to the short season, large rosters and the way the game is designed) of the NFL gives virtually every fan can hope that their team can pull a title.

Lastly, you can't ignore the racial factor. I don't have any numbers handy, but I'm sure that the NBA is more popular amongst black people and the NFL is more popular amongst white people. The perception, (unfair in my mind), is that basketball is a black man's game.

However little I like Stern, he has done a much better job at expanding the NBA's popularity overseas than the NFL has...