Jason Whitlock - David Stern failed to help basketball grow to its full potential

[Rasheed1]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10377689/whitlock-david-stern-was-bully-got-lucky

Anybody read Jason Whitlock's take on David Stern's tenure as commish?

I usually disagree with most of what this guy has to say, but he made a few good points here..

I think NBA has a lot of problems that stern didn't fix and some that he made worse.

I agree with Whitlock that Stern got lucky mostly because he was commish when Bird & Magic entered the league..

He never did solve the problem of the parity..

If you look at the NFL (the most popular league by far in America) you can many of the things they get right that the NBA gets wrong

*More emphasis on teams.. Personalities get a good amount of publicity in the NFL, but it doesn't totally overshadow the team concept. The rivalries are maintained between teams.. Stern leaned too heavily on individuals post Michael Jordan era. The league was always looking for the next jordan instead of focusing on team success.

*Parity. There is something to be said for "worst to first" mentality in the NFL that doesn't exist in the NBA.. Eagles can be last in the division in 2012, and win the division (with a new coach) in 2013. you hardly ever see a team move from bad to good that fast in the NBA. If the count the championships, its mostly the Lakers and the Celtics.. Like half of all the chips are owned by 2 teams :oldlol: Thats crazy.. Parity helps the fans stay involved more.

*The tanking.. I think NBA has some of the WORST front office people in all of sports. Stern tried to help them out, but they simply suck in general. There are as many teams tanking and racing for the bottom as there are racing towards the playoffs. I don't blame the teams given the setup of the cap and free agency. Most teams see this as the only way to get good in the near future.. Stern should been able to fix this problem in the years he was commish

*the connection between college and pro ball.. I admit I don't watch a lot of college ball and I only start paying to players as they get ready to enter the draft. Some people love college ball, but hate the nba

[Heavincent]

I'm not defending Stern, but a lot of those things can't be fixed. Football is inherently more of a team oriented game than basketball, and always will be. You can have multiple star players and still be one of the worst teams in the NFL (like the Texans).

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The NBA's ultimate downfall (basketball is still the second most popular sport in America and top 3 or so in the world) is the amount of games they play. Whereas in football, as many have already pointed out, its like a family gathering. They play once a week so there is more at stake, imo.

[MavsSuperFan]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10377689/whitlock-david-stern-was-bully-got-lucky

Anybody read Jason Whitlock's take on David Stern's tenure as commish?

I usually disagree with most of what this guy has to say, but he made a few good points here..

I think NBA has a lot of problems that stern didn't fix and some that he made worse.

I agree with Whitlock that Stern got lucky mostly because he was commish when Bird & Magic entered the league..

He never did solve the problem of the parity..

If you look at the NFL (the most popular league by far in America) you can many of the things they get right that the NBA gets wrong

*More emphasis on teams.. Personalities get a good amount of publicity in the NFL, but it doesn't totally overshadow the team concept. The rivalries are maintained between teams.. Stern leaned too heavily on individuals post Michael Jordan era. The league was always looking for the next jordan instead of focusing on team success.

*Parity. There is something to be said for "worst to first" mentality in the NFL that doesn't exist in the NBA.. Eagles can be last in the division in 2012, and win the division (with a new coach) in 2013. you hardly ever see a team move from bad to good that fast in the NBA. If the count the championships, its mostly the Lakers and the Celtics.. Like half of all the chips are owned by 2 teams :oldlol: Thats crazy.. Parity helps the fans stay involved more.

*The tanking.. I think NBA has some of the WORST front office people in all of sports. Stern tried to help them out, but they simply suck in general. There are as many teams tanking and racing for the bottom as there are racing towards the playoffs. I don't blame the teams given the setup of the cap and free agency. Most teams see this as the only way to get good in the near future.. Stern should been able to fix this problem in the years he was commish

*the connection between college and pro ball.. I admit I don't watch a lot of college ball and I only start paying to players as they get ready to enter the draft. Some people love college ball, but hate the nba …. I agree when Whitlock talks about kobe going to college, and the set up (even though I think there shouldn't be an age limit).. I would like to hear some opinions on this.

*and the race issue.. I think NBA had a terrible image in the 70s partially due to the lack of any white players.. I think the "lazy" and "drug infested" labels stuck very easily due to this. Bird/Magic worked so well because of race and because of Bird's talent level. He was good enough to give these fans someone to root for again. The 80's Celtics were a great team, and to have them pitted against the Lakers who were also great and 76ers and Pistons to (a lesser degree) made the league very exciting.. The league was able to produce that "Ali - Frazier" feel over and over again.

I dont agree with parts of the article, but Jason Whitlock is an instigator and he always writes articles of this type.. Just wanted to see what people thought of Whitlock's points and also of David Stern's reign as commish of the NBA


Several points:

Tanking in the NFL is much worse than in the NBA (there was no reason for the colts to start curtis painter in that many games in 2011 other than andrew luck). It is much easier to accomplish too (less games and all you really need to do is to start a bad QB and your team will lose). Also has a much more direct effect as there is no draft lottery. Eg. Worst record gets #1 pick, second worst gets #2, and etc, super bowl winner gets #32.

One of the strengths of the NBA is the focus on stars. Lebron, Kobe, Chris Paul, blake, Howard, D wade, and Durant transcend the sport. There marketability is confirmed by the fact that major corporations (who do tons of market research) have decided to use them in ad campaigns. The NFL's only stars at this level is Peyton and Brady (and brady rarely does ad campaigns).

You are right about parity though. As a mavs fan i have zero hope that we will be good anytime soon. As a cowboy fan I think we can be good next year.

Chiefs 2-14 in 2012, Chiefs 12-4 in 2013. That kind of turn around is impossible in the NBA.

Also easier to follow the NFL. I can watch every NFL game that matters. No one that works can watch ever NBA game that matters.

[Y2ktors]

Several points:

Tanking in the NFL is much worse than in the NBA (there was no reason for the colts to start curtis painter in that many games in 2011 other than andrew luck). It is much easier to accomplish too (less games and all you really need to do is to start a bad QB and your team will lose). Also has a much more direct effect as there is no draft lottery. Eg. Worst record gets #1 pick, second worst gets #2, and etc, super bowl winner gets #32.

One of the strengths of the NBA is the focus on stars. Lebron, Kobe, Chris Paul, blake, Howard, D wade, and Durant transcend the sport. There marketability is confirmed by the fact that major corporations (who do tons of market research) have decided to use them in ad campaigns. The NFL's only stars at this level is Peyton and Brady (and brady rarely does ad campaigns).

You are right about parity though. As a mavs fan i have zero hope that we will be good anytime soon. As a cowboy fan I think we can be good next year.

Chiefs 2-14 in 2012, Chiefs 12-4 in 2013. That kind of turn around is impossible in the NBA.

Also easier to follow the NFL. I can watch every NFL game that matters. No one that works can watch ever NBA game that matters.

Stern tried to help with fixing this: the raising of the age limit. Guys are not coming into the league with NBA-ready games because they only stay in college or overseas for 1 year before declaring for the draft. There are probably less than 5% of guys who are drafted and immediately make great, positive impacts on their respective teams.

[Akrazotile]

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10377689/whitlock-david-stern-was-bully-got-lucky
I usually disagree with most of what this guy has to say, but he made a few good points here..







Gee, Whitlock is known for taking black people/culture to task when they deserve to be held accountable.

Imagine our surprise that rasheed1 never agrees with him. Except the times he singles out a white guy. :rolleyes:

[Rasheed1]

Gee, Whitlock is known for taking black people/culture to task when they deserve to be held accountable.

Imagine our surprise that rasheed1 never agrees with him. Except the times he singles out a white guy. :rolleyes:


:oldlol: Hi Im Rasheed, and you are?

sorry if I don't recognize you hiding behind the alt account..


anyways


Tanking in the NFL is much worse than in the NBA (there was no reason for the colts to start curtis painter in that many games in 2011 other than andrew luck). It is much easier to accomplish too (less games and all you really need to do is to start a bad QB and your team will lose). Also has a much more direct effect as there is no draft lottery. Eg. Worst record gets #1 pick, second worst gets #2, and etc, super bowl winner gets #32.

I agree tanking happens in the NFL.. I think it is becoming an epidemic in the NBA.. How many teams are in the Jabari, Wiggin sweepstakes?


One of the strengths of the NBA is the focus on stars. Lebron, Kobe, Chris Paul, blake, Howard, D wade, and Durant transcend the sport. There marketability is confirmed by the fact that major corporations (who do tons of market research) have decided to use them in ad campaigns. The NFL's only stars at this level is Peyton and Brady (and brady rarely does ad campaigns).


Stars make the NBA money, but it has also led to a lot of individual thinking among players and fans alike.. The obsession with titles is getting out of hand.. A lot of fans arguments are as simple as "5>2".. Players like Lebron and kobe are totally preoccupied with their own personal legacy

[IncarceratedBob]

This dude is a terrible writer. Basically a no talent hack piece of shit.

[Sarcastic]

Stern tried to help with fixing this: the raising of the age limit. Guys are not coming into the league with NBA-ready games because they only stay in college or overseas for 1 year before declaring for the draft. There are probably less than 5% of guys who are drafted and immediately make great, positive impacts on their respective teams.


I am not sure why everyone continues to parrot this inaccurate bullshit. Maybe it's because you got brainwashed by Stern and the owners?

The HS to pro players have had a better rate of success, than the guys who go to college.

[Leftimage]

I think Whitlock has a job thanks to Stern.

Would Bird-Magic have been as well marketed had under a different Commish?

Would Jordan have become a global icon under a different commish? Nike this, Nike that - Jordan was an NBA player. The person responsible for the league he played in deserves some props as well imo.

The ''he could have done better'' argument is a little weak tbh. Because it's pretty much always true for every type of situation out there.

IMO Stern did a really terrific job - especially when compared to his peers. (Gary Bettman & Bud Selig have been less than stellar imo - Paul Tagliabue was somewhat forgettable)

[guy]

Stern really shouldn't get as much credit as he gets nor should he get as much blame. I don't see how a lot of the successes Stern is credited with wouldn't have happened anyway. He was in the right place at the right time. Bird, Magic, and Jordan were natural stars and TV and later the internet were booming. Naturally the sport was going to get bigger with growing technology and there was going to be less racist views against the sport as we got further away from that time. And of course because of that, the league was going to make a lot more money, and the players would as a result. As far as drugs go, it hit its peak in the 70s and 80s nationwide, so you would think NBA players would smarten up just like normal people did anyway. Some of the other stuff like dress code and punishing players for their behavior is nice and all but IMO is small in the grand scheme of things.

[outbreak]

The NBA's ultimate downfall (basketball is still the second most popular sport in America and top 3 or so in the world) is the amount of games they play. Whereas in football, as many have already pointed out, its like a family gathering. They play once a week so there is more at stake, imo.
Its about 6th to 10th in the world on most sites and I think it was 3rd or 4th in USA on a recent thread.
Most issues aren't solvable but the pushing of star players to the point of helping inflate stats and letting people flop or break rules really hurts it's image. It's a joke that they need points of emphasid to enfirce part of their rules each season. Things like garnett being calledfor illegal screens randomly when he gets a pass on them most times is silly

[longtime lurker]

[QUOTE=Rasheed1]http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10377689/whitlock-david-stern-was-bully-got-lucky

Anybody read Jason Whitlock's take on David Stern's tenure as commish?

I usually disagree with most of what this guy has to say, but he made a few good points here..

I think NBA has a lot of problems that stern didn't fix and some that he made worse.

I agree with Whitlock that Stern got lucky mostly because he was commish when Bird & Magic entered the league..

He never did solve the problem of the parity..

If you look at the NFL (the most popular league by far in America) you can many of the things they get right that the NBA gets wrong

*More emphasis on teams.. Personalities get a good amount of publicity in the NFL, but it doesn't totally overshadow the team concept. The rivalries are maintained between teams.. Stern leaned too heavily on individuals post Michael Jordan era. The league was always looking for the next jordan instead of focusing on team success.

*Parity. There is something to be said for "worst to first" mentality in the NFL that doesn't exist in the NBA.. Eagles can be last in the division in 2012, and win the division (with a new coach) in 2013. you hardly ever see a team move from bad to good that fast in the NBA. If the count the championships, its mostly the Lakers and the Celtics.. Like half of all the chips are owned by 2 teams :oldlol: Thats crazy.. Parity helps the fans stay involved more.

*The tanking.. I think NBA has some of the WORST front office people in all of sports. Stern tried to help them out, but they simply suck in general. There are as many teams tanking and racing for the bottom as there are racing towards the playoffs. I don't blame the teams given the setup of the cap and free agency. Most teams see this as the only way to get good in the near future.. Stern should been able to fix this problem in the years he was commish

*the connection between college and pro ball.. I admit I don't watch a lot of college ball and I only start paying to players as they get ready to enter the draft. Some people love college ball, but hate the nba

[Rasheed1]

I stopped reading at Jason Whitlock... but I only agree with him regarding the emphasis on the individual over the team alienated a lot of markets and pretty much gave owners and GM's excuses to give up and just tank.

Also the defensive rule changes that were supposed to increase scoring has made the game less bearable to watch with all the ticky tack fouls.

Yes Stern got extremely lucky with Magic, Bird and Jordan but I give him credit expanding the NBA from a business standpoint, especially its visibility globally.


Agreed.. That was his best contribution IMO. He took advantage of the market across seas and widened the NBA's appeal

[guy]

The NBA's ultimate downfall (basketball is still the second most popular sport in America and top 3 or so in the world) is the amount of games they play. Whereas in football, as many have already pointed out, its like a family gathering. They play once a week so there is more at stake, imo.

How many games you think they should play then? Could you imagine them playing 16 games per year and then 1 game playoff rounds? It would be absolutely terrible and people would think of it as a joke. You can't compare it to football. Just different sports.

[Rasheed1]

How many games you think they should play then? Could you imagine them playing 16 games per year and then 1 game playoff rounds? It would be absolutely terrible and people would think of it as a joke. You can't compare it to football. Just different sports.


I don't think there is any way to fix that issue.. It wouldn't work for the fans, and the revenue would be terrible.

Maybe a best of 3 or 5 playoff scenario? have each round shortened a few games to make each game matter more..

Again I don't think it would happen because of the revenue the league would lose minus those extra games..

[navy]

Is nobody going to mention the elephant in the room? Basketball is still viewed as a "black" sport by many, while the NFL isn't. Despite both being predominantly black.

[guy]

*More emphasis on teams.. Personalities get a good amount of publicity in the NFL, but it doesn't totally overshadow the team concept. The rivalries are maintained between teams.. Stern leaned too heavily on individuals post Michael Jordan era. The league was always looking for the next jordan instead of focusing on team success.

Well I'd say that has a lot to do with football just being a more team-oriented sport then basketball and the fact that basketball players are so much more visible to the viewer not covered in pads and helmets. Football is 11 on 11 and have completely different players for offense and defense. Basketball is 5 on 5. The individual in basketball just has so much more impact so of course fans are going to cater more towards that then in basketball then football. On top of that, there are so many more players in football and they are more replaceable then in basketball. A running back can literally have a career year and then 3 years later isn't even in the league.



*Parity. There is something to be said for "worst to first" mentality in the NFL that doesn't exist in the NBA.. Eagles can be last in the division in 2012, and win the division (with a new coach) in 2013. you hardly ever see a team move from bad to good that fast in the NBA. If the count the championships, its mostly the Lakers and the Celtics.. Like half of all the chips are owned by 2 teams :oldlol: Thats crazy.. Parity helps the fans stay involved more.


And I think that has a lot more to do with the understandable nature of the sport. NFL understandably plays only 16 games while the NBA understandably plays 82 games. There's a lot less room for error in the NFL. A 5 game hot streak or cold streak in the NFL has a much bigger impact then it would in the NBA. NFL also understandably plays 1 game playoff rounds while the NBA understandably plays best of 7 playoff rounds. Obviously with that being the case, there's going to be way more upsets in the NFL. Obviously though, it would be terrible for the NBA to be set up that way.

Also, a big play in the NFL has way more impact then a big play in the NBA. One team could be outplaying the other team for the majority of the game, but a pick 6 and/or kickoff return from that other team could decide the game. No play in the NBA has that much of an impact.

And then of course like I said before, stars have much more impact in the NBA then in the NFL.

Its completely understandable why the NBA doesn't have as much as parity as the NFL and I don't think its realistic for that to ever happen.

[Rasheed1]

Is nobody going to mention the elephant in the room? Basketball is still viewed as a "black" sport by many, while the NFL isn't. Despite both being predominantly black.


NFL has the QB position though.. Thats still predominately white.. And most of the best QBs are white.. If that changes? things may change..

[russwest0]

The years 1991, 1993, 2001, 2002, and 2006 have been rigged. All in series that Tim Donaghy (the scapegoat) never even officiated.

Countless other games have been rigged.
The draft lottery has been rigged, and it's pretty much been proven.

That is why I hate David Stern.

[navy]

NFL has the QB position though.. Thats still predominately white.. And most of the best QBs are white.. If that changes? things may change..
I just think it's weird Basketball has that reputation in America but football doesnt. Basketball thrives on stars and the white superstars these days include.....Kevin Love? That's not going to draw in more white people lol.



The international stars bring in so many fans from their respective countries. Even if they arent that good.

[Akrazotile]

Anybody who "grades" Stern based on how he impacted the game itself is doing it wrong. Thats not his JOB. His job is to make more money for his employers, which are the owners. He doesnt just unilaterally make all these decisions. Many of them probably came from ownership, hes just the one that announces them.

Blaming him for less defense or tanking or whatever is like blaming garbage men for only removing waste from neighborhoods, and not doing anything to decrease how wasteful people are being. Thats not their job. Just because you live in an idealized fairyworld, doesnt mean your assessments based therein are correct.

Sterns JOB was to increase profitability. Thas what he did, very successfully. Whether YOU like it or not, the JOB was well done.

[knicksman]

looks like espn is reading the boards and stole my ideas

[ZenMaster]

How many games you think they should play then? Could you imagine them playing 16 games per year and then 1 game playoff rounds? It would be absolutely terrible and people would think of it as a joke. You can't compare it to football. Just different sports.

Two games a week would make it more of an "event" to watch each game, one mid-week and one on weekends. Should make for a 40-50 game regular season. Still three times as much as in football.

A lot less players would be hurt and the quality top notch every game.

Jeff Van Gundy and Mike Breen had an exchange the other day, Van Gundy asked that they do not cut to the Bucks-Magic game because nobody wanted to see that, Green defends it and gives the line "but that's the beauty of it, on any given night anybody can win", I was waiting for Van Gundy to say "that's the problem with it, on any given night nobody cares", but he never did.

[guy]

I don't think there is any way to fix that issue.. It wouldn't work for the fans, and the revenue would be terrible.

Maybe a best of 3 or 5 playoff scenario? have each round shortened a few games to make each game matter more..

Again I don't think it would happen because of the revenue the league would lose minus those extra games..

I really don't see anything wrong with the playoff format. I love it. Best of 3 sounds terrible. I guess you could do best of 5 in the first round like before, but is that really going to change a lot? Probably not. Maybe you can change the amount of teams that get in the playoffs. Do it like football with 6 teams from each conference and the best 2 teams get a bye. But I don't think its really a good idea to do that, because in football teams are used to byes cause of the bye week in the regular season. In the NBA, teams don't just get 1-2 weeks off.

I really don't see anyway to improve the NBA. I think the setup is fine. What works for the NFL won't necessarily work for the NBA.

[secund2nun]

Stern is terrible, but you can't have parity in the NBA. It simply can't be done. Basketball is a superstar driven sport, unlike baseball, hockey, and football. Also artificial parity sucks anyways imo.

I do agree with Kuniva that they should cut down the amount of games played each season. 82 games is ridiculous.

It would be interesting if they made the following changes to the NBA:

*Decrease the amount of games each season to 29 (play each team once a season)

*Only 8 teams get in the playoffs instead of 16

*Because of the lower amount of games making for easier travel they can eliminate conferences. The best 8 teams get in the playoffs period. Any team can face any team in the finals.

I think these changes would make the NBA better. The current season is so long and pointless.

[Rasheed1]

Two games a week would make it more of an "event" to watch each game, one mid-week and one on weekends. Should make for a 40-50 game regular season. Still three times as much as in football.

A lot less players would be hurt and the quality top notch every game.

Jeff Van Gundy and Mike Breen had an exchange the other day, Van Gundy asked that they do not cut to the Bucks-Magic game because nobody wanted to see that, Green defends it and gives the line "but that's the beauty of it, on any given night anybody can win", I was waiting for Van Gundy to say "that's the problem with it, on any given night nobody cares", but he never did.


I like the 2 games a week idea.. I think plenty of NBA people have said 58 games should be the number..

I agree, but I don't see the owners cutting back and losing that revenue they get from TV and stadium attendance..

Its a yearly fight in the NFL to keep them from trying to add more games to the preseason and regular season.. Right now the NFL is talking about adding some playoff slots.. I don't like that either.. I don't want it to be easy to make the playoffs.. it shouldn't be a forgone conclusion that a team will make it to the playoffs

[guy]

Two games a week would make it more of an "event" to watch each game, one mid-week and one on weekends. Should make for a 40-50 game regular season. Still three times as much as in football.

A lot less players would be hurt and the quality top notch every game.

Jeff Van Gundy and Mike Breen had an exchange the other day, Van Gundy asked that they do not cut to the Bucks-Magic game because nobody wanted to see that, Green defends it and gives the line "but that's the beauty of it, on any given night anybody can win", I was waiting for Van Gundy to say "that's the problem with it, on any given night nobody cares", but he never did.

I doubt it. You might be right though. I just don't see it happening that way.

[Rasheed1]

I really don't see anything wrong with the playoff format. I love it. Best of 3 sounds terrible. I guess you could do best of 5 in the first round like before, but is that really going to change a lot? Probably not. Maybe you can change the amount of teams that get in the playoffs. Do it like football with 6 teams from each conference and the best 2 teams get a bye. But I don't think its really a good idea to do that, because in football teams are used to byes cause of the bye week in the regular season. In the NBA, teams don't just get 1-2 weeks off.

I really don't see anyway to improve the NBA. I think the setup is fine. What works for the NFL won't necessarily work for the NBA.


3 game series may be too short :confusedshrug: I hear you on that.. I think the number of teams that get into the playoffs in the NBA is fine where it is now.. No more, no less

[guy]

I like the 2 games a week idea.. I think plenty of NBA people have said 58 games should be the number..

I agree, but I don't see the owners cutting back and losing that revenue they get from TV and stadium attendance..

Its a yearly fight in the NFL to keep them from trying to add more games to the preseason and regular season.. Right now the NFL is talking about adding some playoff slots.. I don't like that either.. I don't want it to be easy to make the playoffs.. it shouldn't be a forgone conclusion that a team will make it to the playoffs

The main reason the NFL doesn't do it though is cause of the physical punishment of the sport. NBA doesn't have that issue. NFL already has games on Sunday, Monday, and Thursday. I'm sure they would double or triple the amount of games and have them on every night if they could. They just don't because everyone would be dead by the end of the season. They obviously know it would be a terrible idea long-term.

[ZenMaster]

I doubt it. You might be right though. I just don't see it happening that way.

I don't see it happening either because of overall revenue, but if you'd want the basketball to get better that would be the way to go.

[Akrazotile]

I like the 2 games a week idea.. I think plenty of NBA people have said 58 games should be the number..

I agree, but I don't see the owners cutting back and losing that revenue they get from TV and stadium attendance..

Its a yearly fight in the NFL to keep them from trying to add more games to the preseason and regular season.. Right now the NFL is talking about adding some playoff slots.. I don't like that either.. I don't want it to be easy to make the playoffs.. it shouldn't be a forgone conclusion that a team will make it to the playoffs


I'm not saying you did it in this post, but most people blame the LEAGUE when they add more games or stretch things thin or come up with cheesy marketing ploys for more money.

They wouldn't be doing these things if there wasn't a demand. At the end of the day, fans vote with their wallets. This is no different than in politics. The average joe out there does NOTHING, he's not INVOLVED, he doesnt PARTICIPATE, he doesn't even PAY ATTENTION. He hands over his tax money and goes and watches survivor or the vma awards. And then when people discuss politics, they blame everyone at the top. Nobody wants to just be honest and admit the average consumer, the average voter, the average person is willfully clueless and ignorant. You think the world guarantees anything for the willfully clueless and ignorant? Like they're just entitled to a perfect utopia? Tell that fairytale walking. In reality the pawns, the sheep, the fops get spun around and pushed in whatever direction those at the top want, and they don't do a damn thing about it. If fans want better quality basketball, they need to vote with their wallets, AND THEY DON'T.

[tragicbronson]

The years 1991, 1993, 2001, 2002, and 2006 have been rigged. All in series that Tim Donaghy (the scapegoat) never even officiated.

Countless other games have been rigged.
The draft lottery has been rigged, and it's pretty much been proven.

That is why I hate David Stern.

True, that guy made a show or it's better to say fcking wrestlemania out of NBA, everything was made towards one or ones that give you more money, that is, are more profitable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M-KCulzJqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmlfiMDUTQ4

[BigMacAttack]

Is nobody going to mention the elephant in the room? Basketball is still viewed as a "black" sport by many, while the NFL isn't. Despite both being predominantly black.

What has this got to do with David Stern or the article?

[MavsSuperFan]

Is nobody going to mention the elephant in the room? Basketball is still viewed as a "black" sport by many, while the NFL isn't. Despite both being predominantly black.
I think this is a very overrated factor. Non-hispanic whites are only 67% of the population nowadays. Also the majority of us are not racists.

Here is some evidence to support my case.

1. The NFL is almost as black as the NBA.
2. Even the QB position is becoming increasingly black (RG3, Cam, Wilson, Kaepernick)
3. By far the most white sport of the 4 major leagues in america is the NHL. The NHL is also by far the least popular and profitable.
4. The english premier league is the best soccer league in the world. It is primarily white. It has almost zero popularity in America.
5. Black players (lebron, kobe, d wade, paul, durant, howard, griffin, etc) are the transcendent stars of the NBA. No major corporations are clamoring for Kevin love to shill for them. Casual fans love dunks, which are primarily performed by black players.
6. some racist people tried to set up a whites only basketball league. it failed

[navy]

What has this got to do with David Stern or the article?
Did you read it?

That's not controversial hyperbole. The Stern narrative begins with his biographers explaining that Stern took over a league filled with black players of unsavory reputation. The NBA allegedly had a cocaine problem that other sports leagues did not have. The players were high and lazy. TV networks wouldn't even televise the NBA Finals live. Stern allegedly cleaned all this up.

Actually, I've always felt that white sports writers just didn't like how black the NBA became in the 1970s, so they sold the myth that pro basketball players used more cocaine than baseball and football players.

Without enacting any transformative drug policy, Stern magically got NBA players to kick their coke habits and play a more family-friendly brand of ball? Or maybe David Stern became commissioner roughly four years into the Magic Johnson-Larry Bird era and the infusion of a transcendent white superstar and an exciting black foil made white sports writers quit pretending the NBA used more illicit drugs than the NFL.

[BigMacAttack]

Did you read it?

Apologies, I only skimmed it. I was more reading this thread to gauge others opinions of Stern and the job he has done.

Personally I think he has done pretty well, but I hate him for taking a lot personality and emotion out of the game.

[guy]

I think this is a very overrated factor. Non-hispanic whites are only 67% of the population nowadays. Also the majority of us are not racists.

Here is some evidence to support my case.

1. The NFL is almost as black as the NBA.
2. Even the QB position is becoming increasingly black (RG3, Cam, Wilson, Kaepernick)
3. By far the most white sport of the 4 major leagues in america is the NHL. The NHL is also by far the least popular and profitable.
4. The english premier league is the best soccer league in the world. It is primarily white. It has almost zero popularity in America.
5. Black players (lebron, kobe, d wade, paul, durant, howard, griffin, etc) are the transcendent stars of the NBA. No major corporations are clamoring for Kevin love to shill for them. Casual fans love dunks, which are primarily performed by black players.
6. some racist people tried to set up a whites only basketball league. it failed

Should the NHL even be considered as one of the major leagues? There's really only 3.

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist anymore, but its becoming more and more a thing of the past and really doesn't seem to be that big of a factor when it comes to people's entertainment preferences.

[navy]

I think this is a very overrated factor. Non-hispanic whites are only 67% of the population nowadays. Also the majority of us are not racists.

Here is some evidence to support my case.

1. The NFL is almost as black as the NBA.
2. Even the QB position is becoming increasingly black (RG3, Cam, Wilson, Kaepernick)
3. By far the most white sport of the 4 major leagues in america is the NHL. The NHL is also by far the least popular and profitable.
4. The english premier league is the best soccer league in the world. It is primarily white. It has almost zero popularity in America.
5. Black players (lebron, kobe, d wade, paul, durant, howard, griffin, etc) are the transcendent stars of the NBA. No major corporations are clamoring for Kevin love to shill for them. Casual fans love dunks, which are primarily performed by black players.
6. some racist people tried to set up a whites only basketball league. it failed
67% is the vast majority of people. Considering Hispanics are more to follow soccer and the other minorities are not large enough to be relevant in the United States.

1. Already acknowledged.
2. There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding all those QBs, except Wilson perhaps.
3. Valid point.
4. Soccer isnt popular in the United States,but then again those players are not American whites or American blacks. People will root for their community.
5. I think it goes beyond dunking. You dont necessarily need to be a dunker you need to have a pleasing game (Steph Curry, Kyrie Irving)
6. I wonder why.

I just think if the NBA wants to expand in the United States they need better white guys. If they want to expand to other countries they will need players from those countries. More Jeremy Lins.

[NumberSix]

Basketball simply cannot be scheduled in the same way football is. It's just harder to fallow a team who plays 3-4 times a week at different times.

Everyone can watch a sunday game at 1PM or 4PM. not everybody can see every 10:30PM Wednesday game.

[MavsSuperFan]

I think this is a very overrated factor. Non-hispanic whites are only 67% of the population nowadays. Also the majority of us are not racists.

Here is some evidence to support my case.

1. The NFL is almost as black as the NBA.
2. Even the QB position is becoming increasingly black (RG3, Cam, Wilson, Kaepernick)
3. By far the most white sport of the 4 major leagues in america is the NHL. The NHL is also by far the least popular and profitable.
4. The english premier league is the best soccer league in the world. It is primarily white. It has almost zero popularity in America.
5. Black players (lebron, kobe, d wade, paul, durant, howard, griffin, etc) are the transcendent stars of the NBA. No major corporations are clamoring for Kevin love to shill for them. Casual fans love dunks, which are primarily performed by black players.
6. some racist people tried to set up a whites only basketball league. it failed

If having white superstars = popularity you would expect the NHL and the English Premier League to be the most popular leagues.

I think NBA fans refuse to admit the truth that defence in basketball is hard for an uneducated fan to understand.
There are tons of people that watch basketball that think that only offence is important. To paraphrase my cousin "defence in basketball comes down to missed shots and rebounding the ball to prevent second opportunities. If a team is on and shooting it well no defense can stop it"

Uneducated fans think defence is only steals and blocks. and spectacular blocks are obviously relatively rare. They attribute low FG% to bad offence rather than good defence.

In football defence is super easy to understand. You prevent the offence from advancing the ball. And it is often spectacular (Ints and big hits).

The importance of pitching is immediately evident when watching baseball. You can also see spectacular fielding plays, throwouts from the outfield and stealing HR, occasionally.

Edit: it also doesnt help that me, my cousin and the guys we play with suck and really our games come down to who is shooting better that day.

[MavsSuperFan]

67% is the vast majority of people. Considering Hispanics are more to follow soccer and the other minorities are not large enough to be relevant in the United States.

1. Already acknowledged.
2. There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding all those QBs, except Wilson perhaps.
3. Valid point.
4. Soccer isnt popular in the United States,but then again those players are not American whites or American blacks. People will root for their community.
5. I think it goes beyond dunking. You dont necessarily need to be a dunker you need to have a pleasing game (Steph Curry, Kyrie Irving)
6. I wonder why.

I just think if the NBA wants to expand in the United States they need better white guys. If they want to expand to other countries they will need players from those countries. More Jeremy Lins.


67% is the vast majority of people. Considering Hispanics are more to follow soccer and the other minorities are not large enough to be relevant in the United States.

Looked it up and non-hispanic whites are 63.7% of the US population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnici ty

Historically until very recently white people were almost 90% of the population


2. There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding all those QBs, except Wilson perhaps.
There are racists who make a big deal about on twitter, but their access to the internet makes them seem like a more significant proportion of society than they really are.
The truth is the NFL is still making crazy money and getting crazy ratings with black QBs. This wont change.


6. I wonder why.
I have never said racists dont exist. my argument is they are a minority and in the vast majority of cases have no real power (they are hicks who live in the swamp). The key point is the all white league failed and quickly. No one wanted to watch a bunch of white players that couldnt make the NBA d-league or euro league or even the chinese league, play basketball.

[Akrazotile]

If having white superstars = popularity you would expect the NHL and the English Premier League to be the most popular leagues.

I think NBA fans refuse to admit the truth that defence in basketball is hard for an uneducated fan to understand.


I agree with these things. At its very core, the reason the NFL and NBA have become so popular, are because they are "explosive" sports and that's what fans like to see. Even in other sports, the most popular plays are the "explosive" ones. Home runs, breakaway penalty shots etc. In track people love the 100M and the high jump. Not the 400m relay and the shotput.

Football and basketball are high octane. So fans gravitate to them. Regardless of racial makeup. However, fans love a good narrative as well, such as the quarterback being the knight in shining armor hero. So white fans like to live vicariously through white quarterbacks and black fans do so through black quarterbacks. It is what it is.

But of course, people always need a face on everything. "Economy was good under Clinton!" Ok, explain why. "Well, because, like, he was the President." That's all they know. Anything more complex is out of their league. "The league was good/bad under Stern!" Why? Well, fans don't care. Either they liked how the league evolved or they didn't, and either way they peg it on the commissioner. Even though it's much bigger than him. Much bigger.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Cutting 30 games from the schedule would hurt the NBA's attendance numbers tremendously, without making a significant improvement in the ratings. Terrible idea.

Stars have always driven this league, star wing players in particular. Stern did well emphasizing this strength. That's why the NBA was at its ratings peak when the Bulls were stomping on everyone. Jordan Jordan Jordan. Compare his Q rating to the top NFL of that era (Sanders?). Jordan's silhouette is more well-known.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Its about 6th to 10th in the world on most sites and I think it was 3rd or 4th in USA on a recent thread.
Most issues aren't solvable but the pushing of star players to the point of helping inflate stats and letting people flop or break rules really hurts it's image. It's a joke that they need points of emphasid to enfirce part of their rules each season. Things like garnett being calledfor illegal screens randomly when he gets a pass on them most times is silly

No it's not. I'm talking about basketball btw, not the NBA.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

How many games you think they should play then? Could you imagine them playing 16 games per year and then 1 game playoff rounds? It would be absolutely terrible and people would think of it as a joke. You can't compare it to football. Just different sports.

Not 82 games. Not 4 rounds best-of-7 in the playoffs. I know that much.

[BigMacAttack]

No it's not. I'm talking about basketball btw, not the NBA.

Basketball is anywhere from 3-5 depending on who you ask. There is no real definitive answer as there is no real way to measure this, though the top four are generally considered: Soccer, Cricket, Basketball, Tennis in that order, but I have seen volleyball, baseball and even field hockey and table tennis above basketball according to some rankings.

[Dresta]

I think this is a very overrated factor. Non-hispanic whites are only 67% of the population nowadays. Also the majority of us are not racists.

Here is some evidence to support my case.

1. The NFL is almost as black as the NBA.
2. Even the QB position is becoming increasingly black (RG3, Cam, Wilson, Kaepernick)
3. By far the most white sport of the 4 major leagues in america is the NHL. The NHL is also by far the least popular and profitable.
4. The english premier league is the best soccer league in the world. It is primarily white. It has almost zero popularity in America.
5. Black players (lebron, kobe, d wade, paul, durant, howard, griffin, etc) are the transcendent stars of the NBA. No major corporations are clamoring for Kevin love to shill for them. Casual fans love dunks, which are primarily performed by black players.
6. some racist people tried to set up a whites only basketball league. it failed
That's not true anymore. And i'm darker skinned than that dude :lol . It simply doesn't make sense to refer to people as fair as Blake Griffin as being 'black'

[MavsSuperFan]

That's not true anymore. And i'm darker skinned than that dude :lol . It simply doesn't make sense to refer to people as fair as Blake Griffin as being 'black'
his dad is black, and in america if you are partially black you were considered black. That is how race has always been viewed in this country. Also I think he self identifies as black.

[BigMacAttack]

his dad is black, and in america if you are partially black you were considered black. That is how race has always been viewed in this country. Also I think he self identifies as black.

Does he use a mirror? Haha reminds me of when I found out Kidd is black, Griffin is lighter then that.

[DMV2]

Parity didn't really get the NBA anywhere in the 70's when MLB was the most dominant league. It was Bird and Magic who gave the NBA live primetime TV slots. Then Jordan took it to the next level and officially help turn basketball into a global sport.

I don't think we can say for sure that parity would work for the NBA like it does for the NFL. You have 52 players on an NFL roster. 22 players total in each play. It's definitely much more of a team sport than the NBA. 1 QB has to rely on 10 other players on his squad to score a touchdown, and then he has to watch 11 more of his teammates defend the field. In the NBA, you can watch your favorite player make a huge block at one end of the court and then hit a huge 3 at the other side of the court in a span of 20 seconds. That's really not bad. It would be great if the NBA was more team-oriented but like I said the league was put on the map by 3 names (Bird, Magic and Jordan). It's just how the league is.

So to me, the overall effect of "superstars" in the NBA is actually a good thing. My only criticism would be that Stern and the NBA focuses way too much on "offensive superstars." I'd like to see defense become a bigger part of the game.

The NBA doesn't have as many fans in the States as the NFL does but globally, it's bigger and the league will keep growing. It's not all that bad.

NFL = Biggest league in America
MLB = Still huge among 35+ demographic and they sell tickets well.
NBA = Big international fanbase
And the NHL has Canada.

Each league has its own niche.