"And for tonight's halftime entertainment, Marv, let's go to the Blazers locker room and catch a glimpse of Detlef Schrempf undressing."

"Yeah, Bob, he's taking off his shorts right now."

Camera zooms in for a close-up.

"Look at him go, Marv. He's taking off his jockstrap one leg at a time."

"Amazing stuff, Bob. Now let's swing things back to courtside where Ahmad is chatting with . . ."

NBC theme music plays as camera zooms out. Schrempf can be seen cowering in the corner with a towel covering his wedding tackle.

An unrealistic scene concocted by another overly imaginative sportswriter, you say? Not so fast.

The NBA last week announced plans to install unmanned cameras in locker rooms during nationally televised games. In addition, coaches will be required to wear microphones during these telecasts. The extra coverage is intended to give viewers who can't afford front-row seats a better feel for the game.

That's the party line, at least. Here's the truth: Television ratings have plummeted in the post-Jordan era and the NBA is hoping to jump-start fan interest. Even if cameras and mikes do the trick, they're bad for the game.

The idea sounds good on paper. Who wouldn't want to hear Latrell Sprewell get chewed out by his coach for committing a turnover? But do you really think Knicks coach Jeff Van Gundy would embarrass one of his players with millions listening?

Instead of: "Sprewell, you s***! I'm gonna nail your a** to the bench," you'll probably get: "Ahhh . . . Latrell. Let's not forget to set our picks out there today. Alrighty-tighty, partner?"

In other words, access to courtside talk will increase, but it won't be as genuine as the NBA is gunning for.

Coaches will be allowed to turn off mikes in sensitive situations, provided they remain on for the majority of the game. Television technicians will also edit out profanity and anything else they deem inappropriate. But microphones are inhibiting no matter how you slice it and they'll ultimately force coaches to alter their styles. There must be another way to get Joe Couchpotato's attention.

Putting cameras in locker rooms isn't the answer either. When the red light starts, so will the artificial locker-room banter. Plus, teams need time away from the media glare during halftime to discuss strategy, chill out and do whatever else they've been doing behind closed doors. This goes for the smallest junior varsity team to the richest professional club.

Some players have more personal concerns.

"What if someone sees me half-naked?" Schrempf asked. I don't think anyone's lining up to see Detlef half-naked, but it's a valid point nonetheless. Would you want millions of people watching you half-naked?

NBA locker rooms are already the most open places in the sports world today. Players and coaches are required to do interviews no more than 10 minutes after games end. If they refuse, the league will slap down a fine faster than Allen Iverson on the break. Also, female members of the media can't be denied access to locker rooms, regardless of who's standing around in the buff. When the Kings played the Timberwolves in Tokyo last November, Chris Webber had to get dressed in front of three giggling female TV personalities who were eyeing his every move.

Most professional sports bodies that govern outside North America grant the media far less access. The WTA, for example, won't give male reporters the chance to giggle in front of Anna Kournikova when she steps out of the shower. In Japan, professional sports associations often require the media to arrange interviews weeks in advance and submit questions for pre-approval. As for Japanese locker rooms, I can tell you as much about them as I can about Elle MacPherson's bedroom. Never been invited in.

The NBA's liberal policy is far wiser than the alternatives being practiced abroad. But a line has to be drawn somewhere for the sake of the game.

Commissioner David Stern should be applauded for his visionary thinking. The information age is upon us and he's merely trying to change with the times. But just because we have certain technologies doesn't mean we have to use them. We can put a camera in the commissioner's office and broadcast his moves on the Internet, but this would be an enormous disruption to him.

If the technologies aren't intrusive -- like putting a yellow line across the screen during a football game or inserting a microchip into a puck -- then they're acceptable. But when they impact how the game is played, and perhaps the final score, we have to think twice.

That's exactly what coaches have been doing. This past Sunday the league fined the Sonics and Raptors a whopping $100,000 each since their coaches -- Paul Westphal and Butch Carter -- refused to wear mikes. Other coaches have indicated they'll soon be giving the silent treatment as well. Cameras won't be installed until April 1, but we're likely to see that issue leap into the limelight as soon as someone blacks out Big Brother by throwing a towel over the lens.

Perhaps a path of least resistance is the best form of protest. Pacers coach Larry Bird suggested he might have his players sit in the locker room naked so nothing ever gets aired. Maybe he'll finish every courtside sentence with a four-letter word.

But would that really settle the issue? Not if you're a pessimistic coach.

"Next year," Bird said, "they'll be putting computer chips in everybody's (rear ends) so they can monitor them year-round."

Now, now Larry. Let's not give 'em any ideas.