Michael Jordan: What If He Played Today?

One of the things that fascinates me about this modern day of 24-hour news cycles is what other athletes' legacies would have been if they had played today.

Pete Maravich is a great example. Though he is remembered for his floppy socks and amazing ball handling, he was also quite the selfish scorer, and a very colorful personality.

So colorful in fact, that two recent books have been written about him.

What about Wilt Chamberlain? What kind of attention would the greatest scorer who ever lived have gotten from SportsCenter?

Someone who might have benefited from overexposure was Roger Maris. If you've ever seen 61*, you know how he was treated by the media, but in today's age of records falling left and right, he would be embraced more than hated.

But the most interesting case to me isn't some superstar who played in the black and white days of sports. No, it's Michael Jordan, MJ, His Airness.

Last month marked the tenth anniversary of his sixth and final championship and Finals MVP award. While he spent a few mediocre seasons in Washington, most of us can agree that if he had stopped playing after Game Six of the 1998 Finals, it would have been the perfect end to the perfect career.

But imagine if he had been born ten years later. Imagine if he had imposed his will on the 2000's instead of the 1990's.

Instead of leaving a ringless Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Shawn Kemp and Reggie Miller, maybe we would be instead facing a generation of Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan, D-Wade, all without rings.

As a side note, how incredible is the list of amazing players without a ring, simply because Jordan beat them all at one point or another. With the exception of Tiger Woods, no other athlete has made so many world class athletes lose so many times.

Back to the point at hand. While Jordan would be equally dominant (if not more so, given the rule changes) in this day, what would his image be?

In the 90's, Jordan could almost do no wrong. He was in a feature film, had his own line of shoes, and so many other things.

But what would have been made of his less-than-stellar characteristics that often get glossed over by the sheer number of championships he won.

Imagine if the most dominant athlete of of our day, fresh off his third championship is as many years, announced his retirement?

Would the ESPN campus in Connecticut explode with pure hype? Would SportsCenter anchors develop coke problems, just because they were doing round-the-clock analysis of every conceivable reason why Jordan could have quit.

Would an entire 24-hour period be dedicated to nothing but massive editions of PTI and Around the Horn? Who knows? But it boggles the mind to think about it.

One thing is for sure, we would definitely get the real reason pretty soon. Some "source close to the superstar" or "friend with knowledge of the situation" would give an interview to Marc Stein, telling them that it was in fact a semi-forced retirement by David Stern, due to MJ's gambling (or so the rumor goes).

Because, let's face it: Someone as inherently competitive as MJ simply doesn't walk away from three straight titles at the peak of his powers.

I would say that MJ and Tiger are cut from a similar cloth, they are both pathologically competitive, and look what it took for Tiger to walk away, even though he had a torn ACL and multiple stress fractures in his leg.

But what about before he started winning big? From the early part of his career would he be faced with the same questions about his ability to win big when the Pistons kept ousting the Bulls from the playoffs?

Remember how Peyton Manning was continually shredded for not being able to beat Tom Brady? Now the question has evolved into "who's better?", not "can Peyton ever beat Brady?"

When Jordan finally did win the big one, he did it in a very symbolic way, beating the last remnants of the Showtime Lakers in 1991.

In those five games, Jordan showed that Magic's day was ending fast, and his day was coming up.

Would Skip Bayless have spent 1987 to 1991 talking about how MJ was overrated, and would never be a star, only to flip on him after the second championship, and be Jordan's biggest supporter ever, like he did with the Spurs?

Rick Reilly could write column after column of nostalgia after Jordan's father died, and Scoop Jackson and Jemele Hill could write about how Jordan had wrested control of the Eastern conference from the white Celtics back to African-Americans.

Or when Jordan punched a teammate? Would he forever be known for that moment, no matter how much he won? Would be be equivalent to a Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, or Latrell Spreewell, a guy who unquestionably can play, but has character issues?

I think it would have been interesting to observe, but the true question it brings up is this: What is the better way to remember him? The epitome of a properly marketed, charismatic super-duper-star? A selfish team leader whose flaws could be overlooked because he won, and won all the time?

Or the best player ever to stroll on the hardwood court, the most dominant athlete for almost a decade of professional sports, and the benchmark that anyone else who wants to be known as "the best" will have to overcome?

I can't answer the question about how he would be remembered, but I know how he should be remembered, and that's the latter.

He was unquestionably the best, he inspired an entire generation to pick up a basketball instead of a football or baseball (sorry, but I just don't think his run with the White Sox inspired anyone to play baseball), and he left an entire generation of superstars without a championship.

Will we ever see another Jordan? No. Will there be endless comparisons to every young phenom that comes into the NBA? Of course.

Will someone ever be better than Michael Jordan at the game of basketball? Yes. As long as basketball (and sports in general) keeps going on, there is always the possibility that someone will come along and shatter everything that came before.

That's the reason we keep watching. That's the reason LeBron gets so much hype. That's the reason Kobe will always be put up against MJ as long as he is in the game.

That's the reason we watch the draft, to pick out who might be the next big thing. That's why we love stars like Chris Paul, who come into the league with a minimum of hype, and in one year, can bring a city, a league, and a country of fans a new definition of the word "dominant."

Maybe we won't see anyone better than Jordan for another 50 years. Of course, maybe we won't ever see anyone better, the possibility is there.

But I know I'll keep looking for him. And as a sports fan, I'm pretty sure you will too.