Basketball, more than any other sport, relies on superstars to fill arenas and attract television audiences.

In other professional sports, the game itself is attractive. Football offers hard hits, long passes, late-second field goals. Baseball offers overpowering pitchers, chess-like strategy, pinch-hit homeruns. Hockey offers brawls, great saves, breakaway goals.

Professional basketball offers Larry Bird, Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson. These players transcend the simple object of the game--to put the ball in the basket--and give us drama. They are better than their contemporaries because they alone can consistently turn the basketball into something it is not.

Sadly for the National Basketball Association, they are alone. There are only so many superstars. The rest are good players, steady performers who can score points, get rebounds, block shots. But these men are not able to bring a crowd to its feet--much less to the arena in the first place.

The paucity of superstars makes expansion--the first step of which the NBA is carrying out this year with the addition of franchises in Miami, Fla. and Charlotte, N.C.--a bad idea.

Jordan uses the ball as a balloon to carry him from the foul line to the basket in one leap. Bird uses it as a torpedo, which he zips through opposing defenses and into the hands of an open man. Johnson uses it as a charm to hypnotise opposing players.

There are others who qualify as semi-superstars, players who, on occasion, show the same kind of magic that Bird, Jordan and Johnson display daily. Sadly, there are also few of these semi-superstars. Quick, name someone who qualifies as a semi-superstar on the New Jersey Nets. On the Sacramento Kings. On the Phoenix Suns. Name any player on the Phoenix Suns.

By expanding to 25 teams this year and 27 next year (with franchises in Minneapolis, Minn. and Orlando, Fla.), the NBA will be enlarging the boundaries of mediocrity. In addition to teams of no-names in the abovementioned cities, we'll be treated to anonymous bunches in four more towns.

Are we ready for Charlatans in Charlotte, Mistakes in Miami?

Chalk Talk

The NBA should take lessons from people in professional baseball and football. Mediocrity in these sports are not being rewarded. The Chicago White Sox are ready to bolt for St. Petersburg or any other town that will promise on a stack of Roger Angel's The Summer Game to fill the stadium. The St. Louis Cardinals were so bad that the city finally gave up on them. Their move to Phoenix brought no tears. Now, with the marriage of the Cardinals and Phoenix not yet a year old, fans are getting the let's-end-this itch. Phoenix Cardinal ticket prices are high. The team's won-lost percentage is low. So why go?

Proponents of expansion argue that the success of college basketball is an indication of a national hunger for more pro teams. If the NCAA Tournament can have 64 teams, why shouldn't pro basketball have 27?

First, college basketball teams, except for a few big-time clubs such as North Carolina and Georgetown, do not expect to draw more than 10,000 fans to each game. College teams also have a natural audience--the schools' students. Ticket prices to college games are usually not high. And college basketball does not have to be a money-maker. Breaking even is not cause for panic.

Second, college basketball is simply more interesting than professional basketball. College basketball teams play fewer games, hence each game is more important. Upsets are more common.

The NBA decided to expand for financial reasons. The league saw it could make money if it fielded clubs in Miami and Charlotte, so it went ahead and did it. Expansion teams put more players, more referees, more broadcasters, more advertisers and more fans under the wing of the NBA. More people, more dollars.