Hope you guys can help out, I wanted an unbiased sample to see what basketball fans truly think about this particular question.

I voted for stud but not a "superstar". He has the personality of a Eli Manning, not a Terrell Owens, which in the American public doesn't give you that star power. Plus where he plays factors. I do believe he is a top 10 player in the NBA easily, but there is nothing about him that says "superstar". Allen Iverson was/is a superstar, but is nowhere close to the top ranking NBA players, at least not in my eyes. In contrast, you have Chauncey Billups, who has proven that he is a winner and makes players around him better, but he doesn't have "superstar" power AKA sell-ability.

I have to agree with pretty much all of what z32tt_envy said. Talent-wise, he's not missing much, although he's not yet on the level of LeBron, Kobe, Wade, and Paul, for example. He just doesn't have the kind of personality that leads to the title of "superstar" in our culture, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. Roy doesn't make headlines by being the absolute best (although he's definitely one of the best), and he doesn't make headlines through outrageous antics, denigrating his teammates, or acting and playing selfishly, so most non-NBA fans have little reason to have heard of him, unfortunately. It doesn't help that he plays in a fairly small market, and that some of the things that make him so great (efficiency over volume scoring, maturity, leadership at a young age) are so often overlooked in favor of gaudy box scores and highlight-reel plays.

The personality thing is really an interesting point that you guys are bringing up. The way you describe it, you almost make "superstar" sound like a bad thing. I mean, you mentioned something about generating buzz and selling, but there's obviously a lot of negative connotations to Superstar. Is Tim Duncan a superstar? He's a winner and a champion, but he might not be a Superstar by your definition. Also, superstar obviously does not have a direct connection to winning, from what I'm hearing. I don't think anyone would argue that Roy is not a leader, or not a winner. It's sort of sad that being a leader and a winner is not what makes you a Superstar, if that's what you guys are telling me.

I love Roy b/c he shows poise on the court and makes clutch shots w/o being a dick about it (like Kobe). Superstars' images are usually too big for the court - see Shaq, KG, Kobe, Wade, Lebron. I don't think that Roy will approach these until Portland gets to the championship. Frankly that's better for him, I think. If I were an NBA player, I'd rather be known as a leader than a superstar.

I voted Superstar. He's a superstar in the Tim Duncan, Ladanian Tomlinson mold. He just plays the game and plays it damn well. He doesnt talk trash or get into any trouble at all. Hes a leader on the court and of off it within his community. He may not be as marketable as Shaq or Wade or Lebron, but that because he doesnt seek the limelight and its a private/quiet person off the court. To me, his brand of professionalism is welcome addition to this current sports world plagued with babies and prima donna's like TO, ARod, Artest, Pacman Jones types and others. He's a flat out winner and has overcome a lot in his life to make a splash in the NBA. Its impossible not to route for him and want him to do well.


http://www.seattlepi.com/basketball/275308_roy26.html

http://www.gohuskies.com/sports/m-baskbl/s.../030708aae.html

Stud but he doesn't have the aura of a super star even thought he plays like one.

By MY definition of superstar, Brandon Roy fits the category. What I feel the general American public feels is a superstar, he does not. He isn't sellable or at least is not being sold. He is on a low market team, with a bunch of young nobodies. I bet if they took a poll, Brandon Roy would not even be a household name. By the general public's view, how can you have a superstar that isn't even a household name. Is being a superstar a bad thing? No, but it also doesn't mean you are necessarily anywhere close to the best player in the league. David Beckham, Dennis Rodman, Allen Ivreson, etc. while some "real superstars" fly under the radar due to where they play and their personality. Chauncey Billups, Brandon Roy, etc. I hate Paul Pierce but he was a nobody until Garnett and Ray Allen came and they sold the big 3 campaign, which I think is a perfect example. Now to the general public he is a superstar and household name after winning a championship and the big 3 campaign.

He stayed in college until he was a senior. Doesn't that automatically preclude him from being a superstar in this day and age?

No, I don't see what that has to do with superstar status... Wade played until his junior year, and nobody would argue that he's not a superstar. Roy could have entered the NBA instead of returning to play his senior year.

I'd say this guy knocks that theory flat on its face: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/duncati01.html

Love the kid, but superstars are MORE THAN great players. They're the elite of the elite, but they also sell jerseys, shoes, sell out stadiums on the road because people want to play to see them play. I don't think he belongs in the Kobe-LeBron-DWade Stratusphere, so I put him a notch below.

Just checked jersey sales. Not even in the top 15. Could he be considered a superstar? Popularity is definitely part of the equation.

This is a good point. I was thinking about that aspect of what people consider a superstar and Roy doesn't fit in with a lot of it. I will say I do think he could be the best player on a championship team (franchise player), but probably not what people would call a superstar.

The personality thing I mentioned was mainly because superstardom seems to be defined by how well-known you are. There are really two ways to get this level of fame: one is to be the absolute best, and the other way is to constantly get media attention. There's only a few greats who can get fame just by how good they are on the court without being marketed or constantly reported on, and Roy is still on the cusp of that. Duncan is probably the first example of this that comes to mind for most people. Otherwise, you need to either be really marketable (and the story of the young Trailblazers trying to challenge the established stars is fairly marketable, but it hasn't been used to its full potential yet), or you need to make the news for something you did off-the-court. Nobody makes the front pages for just being a good teammate and calling attention away from themselves, they do so by throwing teammates under the bus, making obnoxious and unsportsmanlike celebrations, refusing to practice, etc.; basically, everything that NFL wide receivers are known for. Roy's pretty close to becoming a household name just for his play, along with a few other young players in the league (Durant, Granger, Al Jefferson are a few who come to mind), but he'll never make headlines for any off-the-court antics.

Good stuff guys, I love the feedback. Let's get some more votes!

just because the media does not make him out to be a 'superstar' does not mean he is not a superstar


he is a superstar in my mind based on his play; he does not need to be flashy, or get in trouble or attract attention or be in newspapers to be a superstar...in fact the fact that he seems to be quiet and humble makes him more of a superstar in my book


don't let the media force their perceptions into your perceptions

To me a superstar goes beyond the play on the court. Yes he skill level and level of play is on par with a superstar, but a superstar is someone with name recognition. Someone who people who don't follow sports. For instance Derek Jeter Super Star. Justin Upton while being a total stud isn't a superstar.

It's not that at all. He's a great player. We just have a different definition of superstar. And I disagree.

It's not that I let the media dictate who I think is a great player. But, again, I feel a superstar is much more than a great player.
People outside of NBA fans have probably never heard of Brandon Roy. Doesn't mean he's not great. Just means he's not a superstar.

Example: I don't watch NASCAR. Ever. But I know the names of Jeff Gordon, and Earnhardt. Clearly, they're superstars of that "sport." They transcend just the game itself.

Ok, we got one hater in the house. I figured that would be the case. Keep the votes rollin in, and I love the comments.

Exactly. It is the name test. You say it to someone who doesn't follow the sport if they know who he is than he is a superstar.

He a fantasy superstar. but he not a super star, he a great player. but no where near superstar status.