A vote of no Confidence
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 1:39 PM PDT
57 comments
In some political organizations there's a method of removing leadership from power called a vote of no confidence. A vote such as this proves useful in public situations where the laws of the land or the rules of the body provide no clear mechanism for removing a ruler from power .
Every state has a method for removing leadership in cases of proven corruption, treason or transgression of law. But, in most cases it's very difficult to prove any accusations. Thus, the vote of no confidence allows a body to remove a leader from power with specious knowledge of crime or even merely for incompetence.
While we're no body of ruling figures and the NBA's no democracy, we can still judge the body and let them know where we stand. The poll below is a vote for no confidence in David Stern and the NBA as an organization of officials governing the league as a whole.
I have no confidence for this particular and unprovable (by legal standards) reason: The NBA fails to take action to ensure fairness to small market teams and to players with lesser reputations.
That's enough for me. I won't even bother to mention the regard given to home teams in order to shore up ticket sales, opaqueness in the face of public scandal, and etc.
I could rant here for a while, but I'd rather see what you think.
3 recs |
57 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'm not reacting to Rudy's situation, so
I gotta say, Wrong reaction
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on
who voted no?
If you actually have zero confidence that the NBA doesn’t care about the integrity of the game, then you certainly wouldn’t be posting on this board. You almost certainly wouldn’t be an NBA fan unless it were in a “Hey, look at those guys jump high and do cool dunks” sense.
How David Stern handled Donaghy and the Seattle situation were respectively obstructionist and despicable, and I’m far from his number one fan. But let’s not lose our heads just cuz Rudy took a whack to his, eh?
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 1:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The word Zero isn't in the poll.
“Do you have any confidence in David Stern and the NBA to ensure the integrity, equity and meritocracy of professional basketball?”
Confidence implies that I think he is good at his job. I don’t have ANY thoughts in my mind that he is good at his job. Does he do some things right? Maybe, but I don’t have confidence in him.
I’d a voted no long before the Rudy issue.
by Zaig on Mar 10, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the word "any"
is. If you vote no", that is saying you do not have any confidence in the NBA’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of professional basketball. and if you truly do not have any confidence in that (the equivalent of “I have zero confidence” — "thanks, De Morgan!) then you couldn’t really be an NBA fan.
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh lordy
sportsnation’s formatting strikes again.
My point: “I don’t have any confidence” is the logical equivalent of “I have no confidence”. And if that’s true, then you couldn’t really be an NBA fan.
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong
I have no confidence in Shaq’s ability to shoot FTs. He still makes 60% of them.
Another one. I go all in with KK, someone calls me with AA. I have NO confidence that I am going to win this hand. I know I will win 20% of the time, but that doesn’t make me confident in the least.
by Zaig on Mar 10, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then your confidence in those instances
has no grounding in any empirical basis. So what’s the point of talking about it? You ought to have a fair amount of confidence that he’ll make one of two, less than that that he makes both, and a slight amount of confidence that you win the hand. If you ignore basic reality when you’re making confidence judgments, don’t jump down my throat about it , boyo.
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Confidence
1. full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: We have every confidence in their ability to succeed.
2. belief in oneself and one’s powers or abilities; self-confidence; self-reliance; assurance: His lack of confidence defeated him.
by Zaig on Mar 11, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One of D.Wade's "highlight" dunks last night...
He had the ball WAY off the 3 point line, broke left in a “flash”, took two dribbles, and dunked.
Only problem is that he last dribbled at the 3 point line. Dude took 4 steps (I rewound it 5 times… he took 4 steps). No whistle…. blatant travel.
They go on to win that game.
I’m a Blazer fan, but the NBA has put some gross precedences in place.
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 10, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have thought out the wording on the post better
To my mind, there’s a threshold in confidence for a leader or organization that provides a minimum level for the legitimacy of the organization. So, I should have said, “Do you have enough confidence in Stern and Co that you would like them to stay on as the leaders of the NBA?” That would have been much smarter and is basically what a vote of no confidence is. It’s not something US folks are necessarily familiar with.
But, the poll’s rolling now, so I’ll just leave it as is. Good point, though.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gotcha
sorry to give the appearance of seizing on a technicality, that wasn’t my intention.
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a valid point, and if I weren't at work
I’d certainly make the argument that you were wrong. It’d be lexically based, though, which in the end would make me wrong for not adjusting the lexicon to the readership. Either way, I should really know better. My bad
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love lexically based arguments!
Let’s have one. Ready, go.
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's make it leprachaun based.
In political parlance, a vote of no confidence is a very specific thing. That’s essentially what I proposed. The wording of the question is subsequent to the knowledge one must have to make a vote in such an instance. In most cases, making that vote means you have to understand what a vote of no confidence is. People who speak political jargon understand that to mean such a thing that no matter how I worded the question, the result wouldn’t be skewed, which is why I put very little thought into how I worded the question.
This ultimately fails, of course, because this isn’t a forum where political lexicon rules apply. Even if a person speaks the language, they wouldn’t likely do so here. So….. while you were totally 100% wrong, you were also absolutely correct. Ok, you weren’t wrong at all, but it was fun to write.
I had to scribble that out, as I’m on the phone with a client, so hopefully it makes some sense.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aha
so the fundamental nature of the no-confidence vote is such that the phrasing of the question oughtn’t have mattered. Check. Your point is valid and I concede our brief duel.
One of those hobos with clients and access to computers, eh? Don’t make them like they used to…
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, but i will hop a train in a few minutes and eat beans for dinner
Little modern, little classical. That’s how this hobo rolls.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
like BoB said above, it’s not a yes or no issue really – that’s too simplistic. I really have very little love for Mr. Stern, but I’m not one to buy into all the huge conspiracy theories either. Though I don’t always agree with the league’s plans, policies, and decisions, I generally believe they do have the best interest of the league in mind.
How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009
by douglast on Mar 10, 2009 1:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe when the whole league becomes like this year's dunk contest -- then I'll be inclined to agree with you.
Hit it. Yes he did. Ohhhh yeah.
by Badalona Baddie on Mar 10, 2009 1:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The question you raise is
Do you have any confidence in David Stern and the NBA to ensure the integrity, equity and meritocracy of professional basketball?
I would say everyone has SOME confidence, so the votes should be mostly yeses.
Now as for me, I step back and look at where David Stern has brought this league and MARVEL. He has done an amazing job without botching things like Bud Selig did to baseball. The only bad marks on his era that I can think of are
1) The Lockout-shortened season. Lockouts are dumb. This wasn’t his fault as much as the association in general’s.
2) The Donaghy scandal, which he should have taken more measures to prevent.
3) I had another I was thinking of, but have now forgotten it already. I must be a blonde at heart.
Seriously, by and large Stern has done a good job. He’s screwed some things up, but I shudder to think of where our league would be with some incompetent doofus in there like Selig.
The point is he hasn’t totally screwed things up.
Want more aggressiveness? Try less Baylesslessness.
by prezofdeath on Mar 10, 2009 1:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I was sitting right in front of some guy last night...
he looked like what I remember you to look like… so much so that I asked him if he were a BEdger.
It wasn’t you.
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 10, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I felt bad lying to you, but I was afraid you were a stalker.
Nah, I woulda’ loved to have had tickets, but I had stuff to do up in TC.
Want more aggressiveness? Try less Baylesslessness.
by prezofdeath on Mar 10, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TC?
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 10, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tri Cities, Washington
where I live
Want more aggressiveness? Try less Baylesslessness.
by prezofdeath on Mar 10, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
his handling
of the OKC hijackers situation? cuz that one makes my list.
bummed that you missed the game for leviticus last night? ;)
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, I watched it this morning (well, most of it...still haven't finished it yet :p)
We’re actually going through 2nd Timothy right now, but last night we took a break and watched Flywheel, the same people who made Fireproof.
Flywheel was their rookie phenom so to speak. 20 thousand dollar budget and it was a pretty darn good movie for that much.
Want more aggressiveness? Try less Baylesslessness.
by prezofdeath on Mar 10, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The NBA is a big business...
more than anything, the NBA will protect any revenue opportunities.
The game is second to that.
Give the man his "M"!!!
by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Mar 10, 2009 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
that's why I think
any conspiracy theories are impossible. I absolutely agree with your premise that the NBA cares about its revenue first and the game second.
But any manipulations of the integrity of the game — and I mean big ones, like telling refs to give certain teams calls or outright rigging games, not the star treatment that’s been in vogue for 20-some years — would devastate the NBA. If the league were doing that, and it were proven, it would be the end of the NBA, period. And whatever short-term benefits the league may get from rigging a Lakers-Celtics final pale in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars they would lose if and when that information came to light.
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it wouldn't, quit being ignorant.
Read or listen to Freakonomics. Proving that something bad is going on doesn’t change/destroy it at all.
by Zaig on Mar 10, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
have read freakonomics
and disagreeing with you does not make me ignorant, so if you can refrain from any more ad hominem attacks against my intellect I’d appreciate it.
You seriously think that if it came out that the NBA were rigging games — not one referee with gambling debts and psychological problems, but the NBA as an institution — people would just shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh well. Can’t wait for this year’s playoffs!”? Really? That would be a scandal unprecedented in the history of sports. And you think that that revelation, and I’m quoting you here, wouldn’t “change [the NBA] at all”?
by BlazersOrBust on Mar 10, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I wouldn't call you ignorant, I have to agree with Zaig
Orwell puts it well, “Two legs good, four legs bad. It’s always been that way. Remember Comrade.”
There’d be a scandal. All would be mad. They’d say they cleaned house. Eventually, everyone would come back. All they’d need to do is endlessly repeat themselves. Ya just can’t underestimate the intelligence of the public (Barnham).
Might as well quote one more person while I’m on a quoting role, “The greates argument against democracy is a conversation with the average voter.” -Wilde It kinda fits in with the whole people are really, really dumb theme.
It’s not that their even that dumb. It’s that when it comes down to it, it’s not something that matters enough to do anything about. It’s incredibly tough to compel a population into action or to change its habits. I don’t think a scandal like you mentioned would prove fatal. It might. You just have more faith in our rationality.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This entire vote is irrelevant
David Stern doesn’t care what we think—unless we stop watching games, buying tickets and merchandise, or otherwise patronizing his business.
A customer who complains but keeps coming back, is a satisfied customer.
There is no charge for awesomeness. Or attractiveness.
by EngineerScotty on Mar 10, 2009 2:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Until there's competition.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
That is is a business, but it also is a game, and you have to have legitimacy to it. David Stern has been behind fixing the Finals for the big markets, like when Jordan was with the Bulls and the Luckers won their fluke championships 7-9 years ago. With the Bulls, their last three championships were chippy and dirty, and Rodman and Harper were dirty players, much like Bruce Bowen is today. And, Jordan got the majority of the calls. That, along with Phil the Whiner, Scottie the Baby, and Jerry Krause the pig, are why I hated the Bulls in the 90’s. I see your point that it is a business, so, here is another point: These small market teams pay the league expansion fees, and they have to build new arenas just like teams in LA and New York. They deserve fair officiating, not the league fixing playoffs against them.
by PABroncofan on Mar 10, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Hahahaha
Define “small market.”
Boston is currently the 21st largest city in the U.S. Why do they have titles?
New York is leaps and bounds above everyone else. Why don’t they have more titles?
Chicago is 3rd largest city in the U.S., but let’s be honest. If Portland had drafted Jordan, would they have won any titles?
There is a bias to larger markets. Players like playing there. Playing in L.A. is way more prestigious than playing in Portland. That’s about it though unless you can actually prove your statements.
by Zaig on Mar 10, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had to vote yes, but would have liked to have voted " kind of."
A few points about the Stern era NBA.
1. When Stern took over the NBA, it was not popular. Low TV ratings, low revenues, almost a second class sport like american soccer is today when compared to baseball and football. He lucked out and got to be the commish in the Jordan era, where people were obviously interested in seeing fast, athletic, exciting, and powerful play from MJ. He has slowly changed the rules over the years to allow for easier scoring in the MJ / post MJ era, which is exciting for fans. This is obviously a business decision to increase popularity and revenues, and although basketball purists may scoff at the idea, I believe it has been good for the sport overall.
2. Conspiracy theorists like to say the NBA rigs games / playoff series for large market franchises. Uhhh, San Antonio Spurs anyone? The consistently predictable, cold-blooded efficient, slow – paced ( some would argue boring ) team of recent memory. How many rings do they have over the past 15 years? Yes the NBA gives leeway to stars, but not teams I think.
by dario argento on Mar 10, 2009 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
San Antonio is 7th largest city in U.S.
Not exactly a small market.
by Zaig on Mar 10, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
San Antonio is actually a very small market
As one of the teams that went from the ABA to the NBA, the Spurs continue to payout 25% of market revenue to the teams that were dissolved. From a market standpoint, they will always be viewed as small because of the revenues that they have to payout.
by Salem Stephen on Mar 10, 2009 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When looking at market size, you need to look at the metro area and not just at the city proper
For example, Washington DC is the 27th largest city in the US and has about 40,000 more people in it than Portland. Why is DC never mentioned as a small market? Because the DC metro area has 5.3million people (more than 3 million more than Portland) and is the 8th largest metro area in the nation.
In San Antonio’s case, while San Antonio proper is larger than Dallas proper, the Dallas metro area is 3 times the size as SA’s. Which is why Dallas isn’t talked about as a small market, but SA is.
by tingeyga on Mar 10, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
David Stern and the nba
are about David Stern and basketball globalization. Stern has never cared about the integrity of the game. Stern wanted to get more foreign players in the nba and have other countrys become interested in the sport. Not because Stern really cares about the game but for the marketing of products. Stern tightened up on the handchecking fouls and the contact in the sport so foreign players had an equal chance of succeeding.
Money drives Sterns motivations look at who he has awarded franchises too.(did Vancouver really have a chance?)Two franchises to Charlotte and there still not making it this second go around. The Sonics being whisked away from Seattle by a personal freind of Sterns I dont understand how some of the owners did not go after Stern for collusion.(that could be any franchise in the nba not named Lakers,Celtics, Knicks or 76ers) Any ceo that says the marketing of players is more important then the marketing of a team and a league is bad for buisness. The nba is not that solid right now what is Stern doing about it? arranging financing for the so called teams that are in trouble, I think he is just setting the teams up for the highest bidder.
Thanx for bringing up Stern I havent had a good rant about him for at least 48hrs.
I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.
""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."
by Dragonage on Mar 10, 2009 4:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
How does tightening up on hanckecking fouls help foreign players?
I think the current handcheck rules favor domestic players since the rules are so different form the FIBA rules. Guards who penetrate with the ball benefit most from the new handcheck rules, and the rules were probably changed because players like Wade and CP3 were considered “exciting.”
by trk on Mar 10, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hand checking
was also part of bodying up and hip checking so on and so fourth, basically european players had no chance of playing nba basketball with the physicallity the game presented Rudy would have a hard time if the nba was played today like it was 20 years ago. Every night players manhoods were put on the line and challenged, like has been talked about Portland might not have won there nba title if Lucas pulled the crap on the floot that he does now players threw down back in the day it was not uncommen to see players ingage in fisticuffs. If you like what Stern has done with the nba so be it. As a basketball purist I hate that the game has gone to more international rules. NBA used to stand for No Babys Allowed, now it stands for Nothing But Ametures. (90% of the euro’s in the league today would not have made it 20 years ago.
Also lets not forget that 20 years ago players played 4 years of collage they were much better groomed then todays nba player they new the basics they did not have to come in and learn on the fly fundamentals were essential in there careers. Stern has not done squat but let young p[layers with super agents come into the league and show that players with even one year of collage are better off for it. Lebron as great as he is as an athlete is fundamentally flawed in his game he has overcame alot with his skill set but he still has some serious shooting deficiancys and is not always in the right spot on certain sets.
I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.
""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."
by Dragonage on Mar 10, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOW
i didnt really think the poll would turn out tht way… david stern is the only commish ive known since i started following basketball. To me he has taken to NBA to the next level past the MLB and NFL. He turned to NBA into a golbal brand and a community minded organization. Those who put the vote of no confidence in David stern iwould love to hear your reasons why.
The Blazers will play beautiful basketball.
Brandon will shoot the lights out. Blake will run and LMA will finish strong at the hoop. Bayless will play because we’ll be so far ahead in the 4th quarter, giving all the Jerryd fans something to smile about.
But wait, that’s not all. Rudy will go 5 of 5 from distance. Batum will posterize someone. And Channing will NOT lead the team in points.
qoute from ofred
by Kingzilla on Mar 10, 2009 4:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think quite a few of them are already listed
I wasn’t sure how the poll would turn out, but suspected it’d be close to this. There’s no love for the league around here.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on Mar 10, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the draft has worked out for us
and not that well in recent years for boston and new york
ignacio
by ignacio on Mar 10, 2009 7:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't trust David Stern
as far as I can throw him. Stern has done more good things than bad as commish (as others have said, the league was a mess when he took over) but, although he’s a smart guy, I have no doubt he could justify any action if he felt the result was what he wanted/what was “best” for the NBA. I don’t trust him
I believe in Greg Oden. To all the haters - get down with the program or stay off the wagon for all time. #52
by blazeraddict on Mar 10, 2009 8:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Stern is a great commish for his sport
in the same way that Vince McMahon has been a great commish for his.
Stern quickly figured out that for the NBA to become really profitable, it must be marketed to more than just the diehard fan. Your hardcore Blazer fans, Knick fans, Celtic fans etc. would still tune in to watch their teams even if George W Bush were to take over as NBA commissioner tomorrow and the league went to hell in a handbasket overnight.
No, Stern does not really care what you or I – the diehards – think. He’s already got our money in his pocket. He’s far more interested in making the NBA interesting to the casual fan. That’s where the real money is to be made. Like wrestling’s McMahon (as well as the producers of “American Idol”) Stern understand that the sport (or the singing competition) itself is really just a vehicle for the narrative. And he understands that the best narratives are almost always personality driven.
Look, it was Stern’s great good fortune to take over as commish just as Bird and Magic were entering the league. The magnitude of their personalities was great enough to eclipse the drug scandals that had beset the league and had turned many people off to the NBA just prior to their arrival. Whether by sheer dumb luck or by design, Bird and Magic enabled Stern to get the average fan interested in the NBA again.
That was the point at which the NBA became more about “personalities” than teams. Since the retirement of Bird and Magic, there has been an unbroken skein of star players -Michael, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, LeBron, Wade – who have served as the linchpin of the NBA’s marketing efforts. But while the casual viewer was thrilling to the exploits of the NBA’s poster children, the diehard fans and purists were growing increasingly embittered over the two-tiered officiating system that allowed the league’s stars to further showcase their talents, unencumbered by such trifles such as the traveling rule or an opponent’s defense (for in Sternworld, anyone playing effective defense on a superstar is, by definition, commiting a foul)
But did we diehard fans stop watching? No, we did not. Not even after the playoff debacle in which the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were awarded eleventy bazillion free throws in the fourth quarter of a crucial Game 6 against the glamour challenged Kings. Not only did we keep watching but more and more new viewers were also tuning into to watch – from locales as distant as China, Spain and Lithuania.
So, in the final analysis, it’s true that David Stern is little more than a pimp who has made a ho out of the game we have always loved and will continue to love. If it were up to me (and many of you, I reckon) he’d have been ousted as commish years ago. But like the best pimps, he’s made a ton of money for himself and his business partners. So he ain’t going anywhere.
And, much as it pains me to say it, Stern’s vision of the league as a showcase for its stars does not bode well for the Blazers or any other team whose front office is committed to winning with the concept of a team whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Unless, of course, that team exists to serve as handmaidens to its resident celebrity (as the Bulls with Jordan) Until Brandon Roy or Greg Oden ultimately establish themselves as supserstars (in the eyes of the league and – by extension – the eyes of the referees), Portland’s fortunes will continue to be eclipsed by those teams who are built around one of the NBA’s golden children. That’s just the facts of life in David Stern’s NBA.
by knickfan on Mar 10, 2009 8:28 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Amen, knickfan
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Mar 10, 2009 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I tried to "rec" your post but may have "unrec'd" it
Lame, I know…
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Mar 10, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Stern
satin? that is the question,, that evil sun of a gun has been doing us fans wrong for years. We support our teams, we go blog till there is no tommorow and still he talks about china and the ussr, britain like they matter. Stern get a clue.
I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.
""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."
by Dragonage on Mar 10, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the WWE reference
To David Stern—and the big corporate advertisers that have created and supported him—the NBA is entertainment (i.e., revenue), period. So the actual athletic competition is distorted to enhance the league’s appeal to the lowest common denominator of fandom. That’s why you see the blatant home court bias, the blatant star bias (can’t let stars foul out of games, can you?), and the loosening of inconvenient rules—like travelling on the way to the hoop.
David Halberstam said it all long ago in “The Breaks Of The Game,” and the negative trend has only accellerated in the ensuing decades. More & more, the NBA resembles pro wrestling to me. I still love the NBA; it’s hard to entirely ruin something so great. But the Stern regime has come close.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Mar 10, 2009 9:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
