# The Official Ben Wallace V. Scott Skiles SMACKDOWN Thread



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

let's get it started...





> NEW YORK -- *Red is a bold color, which made Ben Wallace's decision all the more glaring.*
> 
> *Blatantly defying coach Scott Skiles' team rule prohibiting headbands, Wallace broke one out to match the Bulls' road uniforms Saturday night at Madison Square Garden.*
> 
> ...







:rules: :naughty: :nah: :sfight: :boxing: :clap2: 



_unbelievable. just let him wear the damn thing. hello, paxskiles, are you kidding me with this ****? let's play basketball. _


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sgamer,1,5137419.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

i def think ben wallace is the problem. He's pissed that he only played 19 mins the other day. its ur own ****ing fault u got 0 rebounds in 19 minutes.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Headbandgate aside, Wallace doesn't look to me like he has the skills yet to be successful in Skiles' offense and defense. He doesn't really know how to front downlow on defense, or how to cut to the hoop for those short passes from our guards on offense. It's going to be a while before Wallace flourishes on this team, and it has nothing to do with the dress code.


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

Well I remember before Skiles became coach, pretty much everybody on the team was wearing a head band. And I guess that's when he decided they shouldn't be allowed.

I can't believe they are making such a big deal about this. Who cares it's a head band. Are we the only team in the league that you can't wear headbands on?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Can we stop this silly talk about how a headband is somehow going to help Ben Wallace rediscover "his mojo" and play better? Whether or not it is a good rule, Wallace is the one instigating this and we do not have a coach and GM who will coddle players just because they are stars. I wouldn't ask them to start now because Wallace got $60 million dollars and apparently has a bit of an ego.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

RagingBulls316 said:


> Well I remember before Skiles became coach, pretty much everybody on the team was wearing a head band. And I guess that's when he decided they shouldn't be allowed.
> 
> I can't believe they are making such a big deal about this. Who cares it's a head band. Are we the only team in the league that you can't wear headbands on?


infact no, there are plenty of teams, such as jazz and the heat that don't wear headbands, to form continuity and some sense of team within the team. which personally i don't think should be a total issue either way, whether they want to wear it or not, but if its a TEAM rule, why not just not wear it for the teams benefit.

that is why i think big ben is in the wrong, since his the veteran. his getting caught up in his whole ego and his past image, and is subquently further fustrated because his playing poorly, and he needs a reason or an excuse for his bad play. i think its rather childish on wallaces part to not just abide by the team rule and not wear the headband. 

but as i said, throughout his whole career he has been reknowed to pout when the team is not playing well or if he feels his not getting respect, but he should know by now, that some stupid headband doesn't make a player its what he puts out on the court. sure skiles is stubborn at times with his rotation, but he does it because he feels certain players arn't playing hard, whereas wallaces act doesn't have any sort of positive resonation in his actions what so ever. he is just simply crying for attention...

to be honest, i wouldn't mind if we suspend him for a few games, because we more than held our own without wallace on the court. and i rather no wallace then a half hearted, pouting wallace.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I find it hard to believe that the headband issue is really real, but if it is, Skiles needs to put a stop to this nonsense and let Ben and whoever else wants to wear a head band.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

ive been posting in this thread a lot and theres some really good debate going on.


http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=590664&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48


im basically in the agreement with kulaz. ben wallace is not being a professional.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

McBulls said:


> I find it hard to believe that the headband issue is really real, but if it is, Skiles needs to put a stop to this nonsense and let Ben and whoever else wants to wear a head band.


i find it hard that the whole headband issue was a problem also. but the fact of the matter is, its the team rule. so why not just abide by it?? whats the big problem with just not wearing a headband? noone in the past two years, has worn a headband, plain and simple, noone has complained, noone has pulled one on and off secretly because they have an obsession with a headband. heck, hardly anyone on the team wears any wrist bands or anything alike either, which i think is a good thing also. and we let him wear his arm bands, why can't he just let his headband go. i just don't think just because his meant to the star of the team, that he should get STAR treatmeant within the team and can do whatever the **ck he likes. thats just stupid!! he needs to start acting like a man and stop being a little sulking ***ch!.. 

Big Ben has to just let it go, his image of the headband wearing, big afro man should have left behind in detriot. let it go big fella and create a new image in chicago, of being a man and acting like a man!! GROW THE HELL UP and just play basketball!


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

I don't really understand this headband rule.

But if Wallace is a real professional, why he decided to make an evidently provocation?

I hope they calm down and get along with each other. The Bulls don't need internal battle between two bullheads.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

Wallace should not be breaking team rules. He signed a nice contract. You abide by the rules.

Skiles also signed a contract to coach basketball; not be a dictator.

How about this compromise; Wallace can start wearing his handband as long as his RPG above 11


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

sov82 said:


> Wallace should not be breaking team rules. He signed a nice contract. You abide by the rules.
> 
> Skiles also signed a contract to coach basketball; not be a dictator.
> 
> How about this compromise; Wallace can start wearing his handband as long as his RPG above 11


im in a sense in agreement with you. because i don't think skiles should really have played him at all once he saw the headband on to begin with if he wanted to follow the rule. instead of playing a if you wear it ill put you on the bench, and if you dont you can play, cat and mouse game. he should have just sat him the whole game if that was the case..

but if anyone should take a matter to this is paxson. he should fine and suspend his ***!!!! way to gain your respect Ben.. your all class!


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> I find it hard to believe that the headband issue is really real, but if it is, Skiles needs to put a stop to this nonsense and let Ben and whoever else wants to wear a head band.


Why though? Because Ben wants to wear it? People always talk about coaches losing control of the team. I can't think of anything that would be a more obvious way of losing your players than to accomodate the players by changing your rules because the players violate them. If Ben says he wants practice to start half an hour later, should Skiles change that too? The bottom line is that whether or not your or I agree with the rules, coaches are expected to impose and enforce rules on a team.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The headband rule is stupid.
But Ben Wallace looks like an idiot flouting it. It seems like he is more concerned with wearing his headband and making Skiles look bad, than he is winning the game. If he only cared about the Bulls and not how he looked, then he wouldn't be trying to wear the headband, because he knows it gets him taken off the court. But he'd rather sit out to satiate his own ego, than he would be out there helping the Bulls win.

Sounds like stuff Eddie Robinson would pull.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

And I agree. Skiles should make him earn his headband. If he wants to wear the headband then he has to be leading the league in rebounding and blocked shots.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

futuristxen said:


> And I agree. Skiles should make him earn his headband. If he wants to wear the headband then he has to be leading the league in rebounding and blocked shots.


that is the most ridiculous thing i've heard yet. earn his way to wear a headband? say it out loud and you'll realize how stupid that sounds. thats something you would say to a 5 year old to get them to do their homework, these a grown men, rules are rules. its a teamsport and if one player out of a whole team gets special treatmeant what does that say to the other players, it just because a snowball effect. let him cry, pout and sulk all he wants... what a way to act like a man.

paxson must be spewing right about now.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

Daddy, can I wear my favorite head band to school today?

Say that aloud and it sounds just as stupid. Guess what, we live in a petty world.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

If Kirk wants to wear a headband he has to lead the league in assists and steals.
If Deng wants a head band he needs to average 27/5/5 on 50 percent shooting.
If Gordon wants to wear a headband he has to challenge for the league scoring title while shooting over 50 percent.

I dunno. Put a bunch of impossible tasks out there. Headband earning. Could be funny. Half the team walking around with headbands, half the team not.

I do agree, Ben Wallace is a five year old. A 5 year old the Bulls happened to stupidly give a lot of money. Unless they plan to trade him, they have to figure something out.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Ben Wallace was also rocking the "Ultimate Warrior" bicep bands during the game too. 










I guess some guys like to wear them cuz they make your arms look more muscular. 
:wlift: 

But seriously, I made a post earlier in the season after Doug Collins mentioned that Wallace seems to have lost that "eye of the tiger" he had in Detroit. He said the Pistons would make the "gong" noise after every big play he made, and he was also allowed to wear the headband/arm band combo which I thought added to his mystique. Even though those things might seem "minor" to some, it's obvious Wallace wore them for a reason.


----------



## DTigre (Mar 14, 2005)

Wow, I knew Ben started growing an ego these past few seasons because his success, but I never imagined that It'd be so inflated and cause him to act like this.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Can't wait to see people moaning about Wallace's contract in a few years based on this year's production (although Wallace looked pretty mediocre in the playoffs last year as well). Dumars again proving he's the best GM in the central


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

While I think Wallace is wrong for doing what he did, this whole issue is pretty stupid. Wallace wore a headband for how long? He wore the damn thing for Larry Brown, who was also a big rules guy. Wallace has earned the right to wear the headband. he did it all those years he was DPOY. I know Paxson and Skiles get Eddie Robinson/Jalen Rose/Crawford nightmares. But Wallace is 4 time DPOY and wore the thing during those years. Is this worth all the trouble? Lebron wears one..

What is this anyway? A dress code is fine, but I don't think the headband looks that bad. If it gives the guy a better frame of mind to help produce wins then let him wear it! Of course management won't give in. We will be the nicest, well presented 35 win team in history. 

Next thing they will all be weraing tuxedo's and make up.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I can't believe this is happening.

Note to PaxSkiles -- next time you woo an impact free agent, sort out the niggling details first. 

But probably the saddest thing about all this is that Malik Allen played better than Wallace has all season.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

that's still really beside the point. the main point was that the captain of our team went out of his way to go and defy the coach, and quite probably because the coach didnt give him enough minutes in the previous game. With the minute crunch already the way it is, this kind of defiance can be really really serious. As someone in the other boards said, would antonio davis have done something like this? No. Davis enforced the rules, not broke them on purpose.

This is downright a despicable action. Kinda like the Antoine Walker shimmy.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm amazed at how little it takes for people on this board to go ape-****. And this is coming from me!!! I can't believe I'm actually using it, but I'm gonna have to whip out a :chill: pill. You guys need to stop going crazy over something as little as a headband. And I blame the media for making it seem bigger than it is. No wonder stuff like this happens. Because the media blows it up to huge proportions, when the issue could easily be solved behind closed doors (with a happy ending, mind you).

I know Wallace SHOULDN'T have done it, but he DID. And I think the rule is stupid. Let a guy who can actually produce on the defensive end (once the team starts playing better) wear the damn headband!


Once again, you're making this out to be something it isn't.

Ten bucks says one of these guys isn't gonna be here by April, and I can sure as hell bet you Wallace will still be wearing a jersey that says BULLS on it. I'd bet on it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

the-asdf-man said:


> that's still really beside the point. the main point was that the captain of our team went out of his way to go and defy the coach, and quite probably because the coach didnt give him enough minutes in the previous game. With the minute crunch already the way it is, this kind of defiance can be really really serious. As someone in the other boards said, would antonio davis have done something like this? No. Davis enforced the rules, not broke them on purpose.
> 
> This is downright a despicable action. Kinda like the Antoine Walker shimmy.


Wallace's "insubordination" cannot be a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. 

He has clashed with coaches his entire career. He refused to re-enter a game as recently as last March. Impartial third-party observers like Danny Ainge and Doug Collins have opined that Wallace flat-out quit on the Pistons in a couple of the fourth quarters in their series with Miami.

The spin when Wallace was signed was that Flip Saunders is an idiot, and that the Pistons don't try hard enough. I think it's pretty clear now that Wallace is an absolute handful, and that you have to make exceptions for him.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

hopefully they worked things out in that 25 minute secret team meeting after the game.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

article updated with quotes



> "We want to make sure everybody is on the same page," guard Kirk Hinrich said. "Hopefully we will be.
> 
> "Ben wants to win just as much as anybody on the team. He has a track record. He has won a lot of games in this league. He has a championship. We're glad to have him. It's just something we need to work out."


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I can't believe this is happening.
> 
> Note to PaxSkiles -- next time you woo an impact free agent, sort out the niggling details first.
> 
> But probably the saddest thing about all this is that Malik Allen played better than Wallace has all season.


OH really now?

I recall some Ben-in-his-prime statlines from BW this year. He hasn't been consistent but he has put up big games.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

It's an excellent point that the way the Bulls are set up, if Skiles rewards one guys complaining about minutes, it could destroy the team. Minutes are SO thin on that team, skiles has always had the policy of playing the hot hand, or maybe more correctly, sitting the cold one. If Ben Wallace throwing a hissy fit gets him off the bench, what message does that send to Ben Gordon when he is sat?

Big Ben needs to be a good role model for little ben.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Man, Skiles is such a little *****.

But still, I think this will be a big problem for Skaxson. You will look bad to the other players if you all of a sudden cancel this rule. You don't want to show the preferrential treatment, which I think already showed when Big Ben was introduced and Skiles said 50 times he could care less about whether he amde his free throws, and in turn, the Bulls become the worst FT shooting team in the league. I think there is a small correlation. And then again, don't allow it, and your 60 mill dollar star is mad. You get mad at Skiles, and he will retaliate. Big Ben isn't some loner or mute. His attiudes will rub off on his teammates and there will be issues. I think there is something to the 'Skiles can't handle a superstar' theory.

And all for a damn headband


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

This was not very professional by Wallace tonight, but I have to say that I'm quite irritated with PaxSkiles for the headband rule. Despite Wallace's troublesome conduct tonight, I really hope they cave for once and let the guy wear a headband. 

This is the problem about rules. When rules become about rules themselves, the people making the rules really have to ask themselves what is important.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This was not very professional by Wallace tonight, but I have to say that I'm quite irritated with PaxSkiles for the headband rule. Despite Wallace's troublesome conduct tonight, I really hope they cave for once and let the guy wear a headband.
> 
> This is the problem about rules. When rules become about rules themselves, the people making the rules really have to ask themselves what is important.


exactly how I feel. Wallace should have been a man and had a serious talk to the coaching staff if it was really bothering him, not make a statement against your coaches before a desperatly needed win.

Maybe the best way to resolve this conflict is also childish, all coaches and players put your anonymous vote in the hat whether you like the rule or not.

I mean the whole point of the headband rule was to bring the team together, it's obviously not working. Thats really all that needs to be said. Skiles admit your ways aren't always whats best, Wallace admit what you did was selfish and immature.


----------



## MacDanny 6 (Jun 7, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> And I agree. Skiles should make him earn his headband. If he wants to wear the headband then he has to be leading the league in rebounding and blocked shots.


Then thats all he would try to do. Instead of getting his mind focused on winning the game, he'll be focused on padding his stats so he could wear his headband and thats not good.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Hustle said:


> exactly how I feel. Wallace should have been a man and had a serious talk to the coaching staff if it was really bothering him, not make a statement against your coaches before a desperatly needed win.
> 
> Maybe the best way to resolve this conflict is also childish, all coaches and players put your anonymous vote in the hat whether you like the rule or not.
> 
> I mean the whole point of the headband rule was to bring the team together, it's obviously not working. Thats really all that needs to be said. Skiles admit your ways aren't always whats best, Wallace admit what you did was selfish and immature.


inspired by allen iversons practise rant from years past..

"headbands! we're talking about headbands! headbands! we're talking about headbands!"

c'mon guys, for all that are defending wallaces actions have to realize your defending a guy who is meant to be the star of the team, who as a result is sulking and crying out for attention because his not allowed to wear a heaband. WHOOP DI **CKIN DOO!! 

a rule is a rule, why does he have to go out of his way to break a rule. because his playing badly? because the team isn't play well? so he decides to be a little b*tch, and make a tough guy statement by wearing a headband? please, if he really wanted to make a statement he should have played harder, hustled harder, and willed his players to a win. be the first to congratulate teammates, be supportive and be more vocal. i never seem him enthusastic with the team, his always half hearted hand slaps and high fives are lame. 

big ben has to go cry himself a river with timberlake and then come back and play some basketball like a man and stop being a little girl.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

This situation aside, can someone explain to me how headbands have any impact on team unity? Have seen it multiple times in this thread and it has me puzzled. I mean, shoes have a bigger impact, and no one cares about that (superstar always has his own/different shoes from the rest of the team)


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Ben Wallace is going to look like a hybrid of Charles Oakley and Tyson Chandler during his time here under Scott Skiles. Looks like he's off to a good start.

But seriously, I knew we'd find a way to minimize his talent. Folks can make superficial observations about how he's sucking, but we've seen that he has talent --- it's evident in the 4 DPOYs. There HAS to be a deeper reason as to why he's not producing more than just saying "he just doesn't have it." Yeah, maybe he has a history of quitting, but THIS early in the season over THIS issue?

I didn't really like Pax's moves over the summer, but I'm beyond pissed off at Skiles for making issues out of such little things like this. But I'm not surprised. And this is probably just the surface of what we see as fans. 

Even though Ben W. is supposed to be a captain, I would think the coach would know when and how to apply rules as necessary. I could understand why Skiles would do such a thing, but that doesn't make it a necessary rule.

Rules are necessary to prevent things from getting hurt. You can easily stretch, contort that to mean whatever you want. In Skiles case: the headband encourages individuality. Individuality hurts the team. 

If Skiles is treating this as if Ben Wallace's headband will inspire a sense of ego and individuality in the team, then he's looking at the players as if they too will make such a connection, but somehow be intrigued by this concept of individuality and be too stupid to know it, causing the fall of the team and eventually civilization. 

These guys aren't musclehead machines who are supposed to work at max efficiency the split second they are called upon. Even though heavily endowed with a propensity to put a spherical object into a circle 10 feet above the ground, they are still a bunch of people who can be dealt with if they are responded to in reasonable, logical ways. 

DMD brought up a good point "When rules become about rules themselves, the people making the rules really have to ask themselves what is important." Skiles seems to be creating a team of passive rule-followers rather than aggressive winners.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

At first the hard-*** Skiles was pretty annoying to me. But damn it, I have to respect him. He has his way, and its contrary to the rest of the NBA, but damn it, he's sticking to his values.

His hoosiers, selfless, coach is king of the team approach is going to have a hard time long term in the NBA, since many of the great players are like Wallace and have egos. Its hard to find a team of Kirk Hinrichs. 

Skiles does not care who the player is. Its his team. 60 million or no 60 million. Now the ball goes into Wallace's and Paxson's court. Paxson sticks up for his coach. But we're talking a star here. And if you are a winning star that can play like a star, you usually win these battles in the NBA. 

The Bulls could look pretty foolish ruining this “contending” situation with Wallace over a headband. But, its more than a headband. You give in to Big Ben Wallace on this one, then what is the next issue of control that Ben Wallace wants over the team. PaxSkiles control the team Big Ben. The general manager is going to have to step in on this one. Get it done Paxson.

Big Ben wants control. Skiles wants control. Paxson and the fans are stuck in the middle.

SMACKDOWN!!!!! SMACKDOWN!!!!! SMACKDOWN!!!!!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> At first the hard-*** Skiles was pretty annoying to me. But damn it, I have to respect him. He has his way, and its contrary to the rest of the NBA, but damn it, he's sticking to his values.


Skiles is admirable in the same way you admire your one friend who chases the skanks when you go out drinking: you kind of want to be that person, but at the same time, you're pretty sure he's going to be out of the game with the crabs in two years. 

Seriously though, Wallace has to change a lot of his game to contribute what this team needs. I worry when there is a public flare up like this about an non-playing issue because it must be a broader sign of Wallace being unyielding on the court. I just hope Paxson and the Dorf don't undercut Skiles' authority -- that would be a recipe for future disaster.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I googled the history of Headbands and got this link http://www.hairboutique.com/tips/tip6404.htm

*



Headbands Are Dependable

Click to expand...

*Well, if headbands are dependable, headbands for everyone. I would love for the team to screw with Wallace and institute an everyone,coaching staff included, must wear headbands rule. It would be absolutely hilarous to see Skiles wearing a Brooks Brothers suit topped off with an Evita Peroni's Grace Band from the Flamingo collection.


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

I love to wear a headband myself on games, because it's very convenient. Especially if you're wearing contact lenses - sweat can be very bothersome.

However IMO Big Ben is acting like a little pussie. Certainly not like a guy who is (was?) supposed to be a mentor for the team.

You don't break the team rules just beucase you playing bad. You just don't.

I'm optimistic on this, though.

There's no way BB is going to continiue playing like that. Either he will accept some rules and start adjusting to the teams strategy or he will got traded (I'm sure there're some teams that would love to have him on their rosters).


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Just a few comments on that subject:

1. Issue with a headband is much deeper than violation of dress code. IMO, it was Wallace’s reaction to the Skiles dictatorship manners.

2. Skiles is more suited to be a young players coach, when rules are important to develop a valuable habits. For the grown professionals it does not work, they are more receptive to a Phil Jackson style…they need a better motivation.

3. Skiles can't handle a superstar' theory … it is so obvious now. I wish to see him coaching Rodman or KB . Until we have Skiles as a coach, we will never have a true superstar joining that team.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Oh boy. Ben Wallace has a history of being really difficult to handle. Scott Skiles, in his words, has "never lost a battle of wills". John Paxson has brought them together. I guess I drank the "shared philosophy" kool-aid when the Wallace signing happened - that better pay dividends. If it doesn't, this is going to be an ugly few years. I never thought we'd be seeing this stuff 12 games into the season.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

jbulls said:


> ... I never thought we'd be seeing this stuff 12 games into the season...


I agree ... it is very disturbing.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

L.O.B said:


> I googled the history of Headbands and got this link http://www.hairboutique.com/tips/tip6404.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if headbands are dependable, headbands for everyone. I would love for the team to screw with Wallace and institute an everyone,coaching staff included, must wear headbands rule. It would be absolutely hilarous to see Skiles wearing a Brooks Brothers suit topped off with an *Evita Peroni's Grace Band from the Flamingo collection.*



:lol: 

but never after memorial day or before labor day!!


i agree with the notion that this isn't about a headband so much as it's about skiles and his petty rules. *and it is petty.* it's about skiles thinking he is more important than the team, IMO. i'd like to see some TEAM UNITY on DEFENSE, thank you and screw the fashion code. 

i obviously think BW should be allowed to wear it. who knows, maybe he did approach the coaching staff privately about it and they told him "NO". i LIKE that he was defiant about it, and given the responses in this thread, some will agree and some won't.

*SMACKDOWN!!!!!*

and gee i wonder how the front office/marketing folks over at bulls HQ feel about the headband issue seeing as how they promoted BW on the website _all summer long_ sporting the fearsome fro (we were promised we'd fear it) and are now (am guessing) selling the faux'fro bands along with the popcorn, programs and soda. even johnny red kerr was hilariously sporting it on the first home broadcast.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I don't think Skiles put in the headband rule, I think Pax did. One of the first things he did as GM was implement a dress code because he thought the players looked unprofessional sitting on the bench, and he basically brought back Phil Jackson's old dress code - it wasn't as stringent as the dress code David Stern put in later. 

And I'm pretty sure the headbands were part of the code and one Skiles embraced when he joined the team. With all the darn archiving of old articles and making you pay for them at the Chicago paper sites, its hard to find proof. I'll ask Sam Smith, I'm sure next week's mailbag will be all about the headband.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Now, I'm normally a law and order/follow the rules/management kind of guy.

But if the man wants to wear a headband, and it helps him play better, even mentally (heck, MK wore his college shorts under his pro shorts, necessitating long, baggy shorts, and thus changing basketball fashion forever) I say let the man wear a friggin' headband.

It is a small concession from the team which could produce big results.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I thought the reason the Bulls didn't wear head bands in the last couple years was because after Eddy and Jamal left everyone looked dumb in a headband. Look at Ben Gordon's head. Where would you put a headband? Can you imagine Kirk Hinrich with a red white and blue headband? Luol has a tiny skull.

The only player who would look normal would be Nocioni, and he'd look like a 70's tennis player.

Weird headed team.

Tyrus and Thabo though I could see with headbands.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This was not very professional by Wallace tonight, but I have to say that I'm quite irritated with PaxSkiles for the headband rule. Despite Wallace's troublesome conduct tonight, I really hope they cave for once and let the guy wear a headband.
> 
> This is the problem about rules. When rules become about rules themselves, the people making the rules really have to ask themselves what is important.



Disagree. Caving in right now would set a really bad example that defiance of hte coaches works and he will pamper you like a baby sometimes if you throw a tantrum.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

the-asdf-man said:


> Disagree. Caving in right now would set a really bad example that defiance of hte coaches works and he will pamper you like a baby sometimes if you throw a tantrum.



speaking of rules and babies, i think skiles is literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

_it's a headband._ 

*skiles should focus on why the defense is out of whack.*

the man has a napoleon complex the size of canada. 

can you say *TDS!??*


oh, and nocioni with the headband and a slightly longer hairstyle would be totally rockin' a richie tennebaum look. that would be so funny. 

i think the _entire team_ should wear headbands in warmups on tuesday night.

*DEFY THIS!!!*


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

i just find it interesting that we won our first game in such a long time with skiles not there. i seriously believe that had skiles stayed in the game we would have completely blown the lead and the Bulls would have lost.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> speaking of rules and babies, i think skiles is literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.
> 
> _it's a headband._
> 
> ...



You're missing the entire point. If the headband rule is stupid, then yes, it deserves to be changed. Players can get together and talk to the coaching staff and talk about the situation for changing a headband. According to Mcgraw, NO PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION ON THIS TOPIC was held by the bulls. And ben wallace goes out and does something like this. If you dont want skiles to baby wallace, then tell him TO STOP ACTING LIKE ONE.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

anorexorcist said:


> i just find it interesting that we won our first game in such a long time with skiles not there. i seriously believe that had skiles stayed in the game we would have completely blown the lead and the Bulls would have lost.



actually, with skiles in the game we built up a 24 point lead. Then Skiles left and our lead shrunk to single digits.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

the-asdf-man said:


> According to Mcgraw, NO PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION ON THIS TOPIC was held by the bulls.


How do we know that Ben Wallace didn't go to Skiles on numerous occasions and ask him if he could wear it, and if not then why, and Skiles just didn't give him an answer? The media doesn't necessarily have all the answers and may not be told the whole picture.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

the-asdf-man said:


> actually, with skiles in the game we built up a 24 point lead. Then Skiles left and our lead shrunk to single digits.


yeah but my point is, the lead would have probably still shrunk, based on the Bulls' recent history of blowing big leads (see Sacramento game). This time, we hung in there and won. I don't feel we would have done this had Skiles not been ejected.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

On the whole headband thing... As a coach, Skiles should pick and choose his battles. This isn't a battle that is all that important in the grand scheme of things. Rings and necklaces and such - common sense things - are agreed upon universally. Headbands? I'm not seeing the importance of making them an issue. If a guy wants to wear one; if he feels it helps his "mojo" or whatever, let him have at it. As a coach, I wouldn't think of it as caving into my players as much as I'd spin it towards letting them have some leeway and garnering some goodwill when I crack the whip and demand they pick it up on the defensive side of the ball. THAT'S the battle I'd rather win.

I think Wallace was pretty immature to protest in the way that he did. I don't know the whole story but I would hope he's man enough to take it to the coach behind closed doors first. Maybe he did. I don't know. He's not going to help the situation by showing up his coach in a deliberate and challenging manner like he did last night.

Part of being a coach at this level is dealing with personalities. Skiles has got to manage the egos - his included. If his $60 mil. prima-donna wants to wear a headband, bands on his bicepts or whatever - let him. It's a minor concession that appears to mean a lot to Wallace. Lose the battle Skiles - it's O.K. It's the war that's important here.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

anorexorcist said:


> How do we know that Ben Wallace didn't go to Skiles on numerous occasions and ask him if he could wear it, and if not then why, and Skiles just didn't give him an answer? The media doesn't necessarily have all the answers and may not be told the whole picture.





> It was confirmed that Skiles and Wallace did not discuss the topic prior to the game.


There's no real reason to doubt this.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

anorexorcist said:


> How do we know that Ben Wallace didn't go to Skiles on numerous occasions and ask him if he could wear it, and if not then why, and Skiles just didn't give him an answer? The media doesn't necessarily have all the answers and may not be told the whole picture.


Working under the presumption that Skiles behaved maliciously is not surprising coming from some posters on this board. Maybe we should also suppose that he hurled racial epithets at Ben before the game and that's what he was protesting by wearing the headband?


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

anorexorcist said:


> yeah but my point is, the lead would have probably still shrunk, based on the Bulls' recent history of blowing big leads (see Sacramento game). This time, we hung in there and won. I don't feel we would have done this had Skiles not been ejected.



IMO as I was watching the game, Knicks were listless the entire first half and got energized after the Skiles ejection while the Bulls were kinda astounded. So no, im not going to say that the bulls won because they wasn't playing for skiles.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I'd call myself a PaxSkiles supporter, but the annual player-coach dramas are getting tiresome. This is the only team in the league that could find themselves in a situation where the season hangs in the balance over a headband. This is an ugly, embarassing situation for all involved.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Here's my take on the rule itself:

1) It appears that either Pax or Skiles put the rule in place at least a couple years ago and quite possibly as early as the start of Skiles' or even Pax's tenure.

2) Whether or not you would personally implement the rule it's quite hard to argue that it is unreasonable. Apparently coaching legends Pat Rilely and Jerry Sloan have identical rules. The NBA has rules about whether or not players can wear tights, how long their shorts can be, what to wear to games, what to wear on the sidelines, and so on. At some point the league and maybe even society decided that it is okay to subject players who make millions of dollars playing basketball for 80 or 100 games a year to somewhat strict regulations when it comes to their attire.

3) For the most part no one has disagreed until now. While there were some news stories and mild protests over the NBA's new dress code and rules about the shorts the past couple seasons, people didn't lose their minds like this. I certainly don't remember any 5 or 6 page, heated threads on this board. No one talked about the Bulls' headband rule until this season. Some of that may be because before Wallace's signing no one was aware of the rule. However, I truly seem to recall being aware of the rule before this season, so my inclination is that people regularly read the local sports pages likely heard of the rule before. Furthermore, if it is so incredibly egregious, why weren't people asking questions in previous seasons? No one said "Hey, why don't any players on the Bulls wear headbands? They'd better not have an anti-headband rule!!!" If it's really this horrendous violation of the players' freedom, it's a little bit hypocritical to throw a fit when Wallace can't wear one but to be unfazed when Luke Schensher can't. Finally, there was talk about the rule after Ben signed and when Tyrus was granted an exception for his facemask. People talked about the rule then but never protested like this. I think you're rewarding Wallace for breaking the team's rules if you've waited until now to become outraged.

I would like to know what people think the Bulls apparently should have done differently to accomodate Ben Wallace's desire to wear a headband considering the team's options. First though I'd like to point out that even discussing the situation this way means that everyone naively believes this was about headbands and not something else. That doesn't really make sense because if that was the case you think it would've come up during contract negotiations, the first time he was told in the preseason that he couldn't take the court with one on, the first regular season game, the home opener where he wore his fro, pretty much any time before the 13th game of the season. If we acknowledge that this is about Wallace trying to agravate Skiles and not about a headband we'll get further. Knowing that, we can realize that even if he was allowed to wear a headband last night he would've broken some different team rule to voice his displeasure. This means that instead of complaining about the headband rule the Skiles haters will have to start complaining about how he shouldn't be allowed to play Wallace 20 minutes or make other arguments to rationalize the fact that everything is somehow Skiles fault.

Anyways, as I see it, these were the team's options when they signed Wallace, a player reknowned for wearing a headband:

1) Eliminate the rule to accomodate Ben. As others have pointed out this sets a pretty terrible example that Ben is a superstar who is bigger than the team.

2) Make an exception to the rule solely for Ben Wallace. See above.

3) Refuse to punish Wallace for openly and knowingly violating a team rule. This would set a pretty bad example to the players that it is okay to walk all over the coach and management. There's a good chance that chaos ensues. Again, players would start to talk and wonder if Wallace is getting special treatment because he's a superstar.

4) What Skiles did. Sure you have a disgruntled superstar but you still have control over your team. I don't think you can sacrifice your ability to get through to the other 14 players on the roster just to keep one player happy no matter how important that player is to the team. Teams tend to have the leverage necessary to work out an amicable agreement in this situations since the player isn't about to stop collecting checks. The spin from some is that Skiles is somehow to blame for a silly rule but how petty would Wallace be if he kept sitting over a stupid headband?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> On the whole headband thing... As a coach, Skiles should pick and choose his battles. This isn't a battle that is all that important in the grand scheme of things. Rings and necklaces and such - common sense things - are agreed upon universally. Headbands? I'm not seeing the importance of making them an issue. If a guy wants to wear one; if he feels it helps his "mojo" or whatever, let him have at it. As a coach, I wouldn't think of it as caving into my players as much as I'd spin it towards letting them have some leeway and garnering some goodwill when I crack the whip and demand they pick it up on the defensive side of the ball. *THAT'S the battle I'd rather win.*
> 
> I think Wallace was pretty immature to protest in the way that he did. I don't know the whole story but I would hope he's man enough to take it to the coach behind closed doors first. Maybe he did. I don't know. He's not going to help the situation by showing up his coach in a deliberate and challenging manner like he did last night.
> 
> Part of being a coach at this level is dealing with personalities. Skiles has got to manage the egos - his included. If his $60 mil. prima-donna wants to wear a headband, bands on his bicepts or whatever - let him. It's a minor concession that appears to mean a lot to Wallace. *Lose the battle Skiles - it's O.K. It's the war that's important here.*



:clap:



_exactly_. and i do agree that BW didn't handle it "correctly". but he, like all professional athletes, have their quirks and superstitions, and if it "helps" him regain some ****in' mojo, then let him wear it. it's not rocket science. 
















the above picture from bulls.com promoting the "picasso of the paint".


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

IMO skiles did the right thing here and it is EXTREMELY important for skiles to win this battle.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

This is one issue where the GM has to step in. Skiles would quit before he compromises and we need a higher up to make the final call. Ben has no qualms about being treated the same way as the other players yet he keeps defying the coach. I don't know what Ben's motives are but more than likely he just likes his headband.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Ben Wallace has a nice headband . . . . . . for me to poop on.

Its a stupid rule. But that is not the point. It is the coach's rule and it is to be followed.

Wallace's conduct is unacceptable. I can say this with complete comfort: If he doesn't cut this ****, I don't care if ever plays another minute for my beloved Bulls.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

So what about the rules, these guys get thousands/Millions to play this game. If the organization wants to have a dress code so be it. Does it really matter what they wear as long as they get paid? 

I don't care if wallace doesn't like it, should they let wallace win this battle then what? That would open the flood gates and send the wrong message to the other players, letting them try and get what they want. 

I agree that pax should say something and address the situation, but not let it be a big deal as the media would blow it out of proportion. Besides that wallace hasn't been doing crap as of late and maybe he should put up the numbers before trying to pout ala marbury in the same game.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

This whole situation is absurd, who cares if the players wear headbands or not? 

Let Ben wear his headband for the next couple of games, and if he starts looking like the four time dpoy we thought we signed, then let him wear it in the future.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

LegoHat said:


> This whole situation is absurd, who cares if the players wear headbands or not?
> 
> Let Ben wear his headband for the next couple of games, and if he starts looking like the four time dpoy we thought we signed, then let him wear it in the future.


I don't think there's any way they can let him wear it after his blatant insubordination. If they could have communicated and had the conflict behind closed doors I could see it, but not now, because it would undermine the coach long term to basically reward a player who acts in such a childish fashion.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

It's beyond hilarious that the Bulls marketed Wallace sporting his headband (in black and white shots with the head and arm bands highlighted in red, no less) all summer. Mike McGraw and KC Johnson NEED to ask Paxson why they made this marketing choice knowing full well they had a no head band policy. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I like the headband. Wallace looks kind of like Buckwheat when he wears the 'fro without it. You've invested 60 million dollars in the guy, let him wear a tiara if he thinks it makes him play better.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Here is a solution that's sure to delight the management: make _everybody_ wear headbands.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Who's Ben Wallace - a little kid?

That's like two kids sitting in the backseat and one keeps putting one finger past the imaginary line - "Daaaaad, he's on _my side_!"

Grow up, Wallace. Maybe average a double-double and they'll let you wear googly-eye goggles or whatever you want.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

jbulls said:


> It's beyond hilarious that the Bulls marketed Wallace sporting his headband (in black and white shots with the head and arm bands highlighted in red, no less) all summer. Mike McGraw and KC Johnson NEED to ask Paxson why they made this marketing choice knowing full well they had a no head band policy. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I like the headband. Wallace looks kind of like Buckwheat when he wears the 'fro without it. You've invested 60 million dollars in the guy, let him wear a tiara if he thinks it makes him play better.


Haha. I'm guessing there is a bit of a disconnect between the marketing department and management.

Honestly, if he wanted to wear a tiarra it might be less of a problem because (unless the rule is no headwear period) the team doesn't have a preexisting rule forbidding players to wear tiarras, they do with headbands. I just don't see how you can openly modify a longstanding rule to placate your superstar because he defiantly disobeyed the rule. You just can't run any organnization that way.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_from bulls.com - september 2006_

*“It’s a positive environment up there, very upbeat,” Wallace said of the Berto Center. “It only reinforced my excitement to be here and my excitement about the group of guys I’m going to have the opportunity to play with. Between the players, the coaching staff and the organization as a whole, I’m excited and ready to get this thing started.”

Wallace spent a few minutes with Bulls general manager John Paxson talking about next week’s training camp and looking forward to the upcoming campaign.

“He really just reiterated some of the things that we talked about before I signed,” Wallace said. “I think we’re both eager to get going and see how everything plays out.”*







but not the no headband rule, apparently.

:smilewink










http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/wallace_tnt_060927.html


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

Until Ben learns not to completely stop ball movement every time there's an entry pass, they're better off with Malik anyway.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Haha. I'm guessing there is a bit of a disconnect between the marketing department and management.


Just a bit.

Skiles can have his little rule and he should win this battle lest he lose his team ... however I always have been under the insane assumption that the purpose of a headband was to keep sweat dripping from into the players' eyes -- having eyebrows helps (and interestingly it seems Ben Wallace's eyebrows are minimal at best), but where does that leave a guy like Charlie Villanueva, who has alopecia and therefore, no eyebrows (or hair anyplace else on him for that matter)? If I'm not mistaken Villanueva, until he was hurt, is the only guy on the Milwaukee Bucks that wears a headband ... I've not seen anyone else on their roster wearing one this season. So is Villanueva getting preferential treatment because he has a rare medical condition?

This may be faulty logic, and it probably is because I haven't had my 20 cups of coffee yet, but is the no headband rule a further outgrowth of the nitpicky new rules that the league has imposed because they noticed that a few coaches here and there (Scott Skiles, Nate McMillan) outlaw them on their own teams?


Hey Mizenkay ... great find in that graphic up there ...

... but I'm just wondering ... back when the Bulls signed Wallace this summer didn't the marketing department just p-shop Bulls jerseys onto existing pictures of Wallace (if they did, that example you posted is one hell of a great example of Photoshop work)? So why didn't they just edit the headbands out of those existing pictures?


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Man, I went back through the DVR, real uncomfortable going through these events. Pregame/start, no headband. I guess he had it on his hand, and then he put it on and man did it stick out (esp since no Bull has worn one in a while). Then watching in the background of the game as each coach made their way to him. Finally seen with it off with minutes left in the quarter and he goes back in. Stupid rule, but for him to do it again in the second quarter, yikes. Big Ben was on a mission, that's for sure. Not real smart to protest the rule like that, but what a dumb rule (can't get over how dumb!). It'd be like forcing everyone to have the same haircut. When do we get borderline Hitler? Imagine every player with the Skiles or Hinrich cut?

And yes, it turned out okay for Skiles anyway, but I don't know how much credit I'd give to Malik, Eddy just doesn't know how to finish, or was just off because I've never seen so many misses so close as I did last night. And no, the win didn't have that much to do with coaching, more on who we were playing.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

soonerterp said:


> Hey Mizenkay ... great find in that graphic up there ...
> 
> ... but I'm just wondering ... back when the Bulls signed Wallace this summer didn't the marketing department just p-shop Bulls jerseys onto existing pictures of Wallace (if they did, that example you posted is one hell of a great example of Photoshop work)? So why didn't they just edit the headbands out of those existing pictures?



well i guess that's a question for the graphics department at bulls HQ. but, yes, i'm sure they were existing pictures. 

all summer they were promoting the whole "fear the 'fro" angle - spent some time reading the archives on bulls.com to find these pictures.

i guess skiles forgot to micro-manage the art directors and copywriters too. damn. 

btw - *the matadors wear headbands!!*


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> Imagine every player with the Skiles or Hinrich cut?


Ummmm ... no. Although in Skiles' case, it seems involuntary -- he's going bald.

As for Hinrich -- love the guy, but everybody running around with a mop like that is the stuff of nightmares. Everybody will look like brunette versions of the kids from _Village of the Damned_.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_i apologize for this post in advance. but it had to be done._



















from Bulls.com - the Matadors - Living the dream...

_For 90 seconds the men were kings. Hopping, turning, thrusting and grunting their way through their signature tune as the Bulls fans went wild. It was just like a dream. _



this thread is now officially absurd!!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

:bananallama:


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Miz ... apology accepted. Actually the dude with the mohawk isn't quite so bad.

In the spirit of the League as a whole exercising absolute authoritarianism, I present ...

David Aldridge, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sunday, November 26, 2006:



> Antonio Daniels always has worn a suit to and from work. He always has been one of the NBA's most accessible and quotable players, not to mention one of the best assist-turnover guys in the game. He never has caused a minute of trouble as a solid role player for five teams.
> 
> So he doesn't appreciate being treated like a child.
> 
> ...


More after that at the link above.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

BeZerker2008 said:


> So what about the rules, these guys get thousands/Millions to play this game. If the organization wants to have a dress code so be it. Does it really matter what they wear as long as they get paid?
> 
> I don't care if wallace doesn't like it, should they let wallace win this battle then what? That would open the flood gates and send the wrong message to the other players, letting them try and get what they want.


Like Global Thermonuclear War, the only way to win this game is not to play.

The fact that we're playing the game in the first place indicates a disasterous miscalculation on someone's part. I think it's on the part of Scott Skiles, since my belief, not totally confirmed, is that he instituted the rule to play a power game with Wallace in the first place.

It's one thing to have a team dress code. It's another thing to bring a guy in known for doing something (to the extent that the Bulls marketed it!) and then tell him to stop doing it. Abject stupidity is what that is.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

This is a lose/lose situation, IMO. 

If Skiles "wins" then Wallace ditches the head/arm bands for good and he becomes moody/unhappy for the rest of the year, and quite frankly I think he would be more productive on the court if he were allowed to wear them, as petty as that may seem. 

If Wallace "wins" then I agree with what spongy said earlier, as I could see Skiles quitting over something like this, especially if Pax goes over his head. Skiles said he's never lost a battle of wills before and if he loses this one he would rather walk out the door than face the rest of the team.


----------



## Xantos (Jan 8, 2003)

Jesus Christ! SO it has come to this?

A Headband? 
I for one think the rule is silly! Can you imagine Phil telling Scottie and MJ they couldn't wear a arm band?

I point the finger at both Wallace and Skiles.
Pulling him out of the game, was silly. Let him play, and talk to him after the game. 

An Ben, do yu really need a Headband? Does it really make you play better? 
Respect the rules, simple as that. A rule is a rule, no matter how simple and silly!
I'm sure he was made aware of this prior to signing that 60million dollar contract.

We are in trouble man....


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> Not real smart to protest the rule like that, but what a dumb rule (can't get over how dumb!). It'd be like forcing everyone to have the same haircut. When do we get borderline Hitler? Imagine every player with the Skiles or Hinrich cut?


I don't really care for the example. That's forcing a person to look an exact way not forbidding them from wearing a very specific clothing accessory. I think my examples of restrictions already enforced by the league (length of shorts, sideline attire) are more apt. By the way we do already require everyone to look the same, we force them to wear the same uniform (hence the word uniform)! It is even mandated that players were similar footwear. This is not by any means a drastic departure from the other rules about on court attire forced by the league any by other teams.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Like Global Thermonuclear War, the only way to win this game is not to play.
> 
> The fact that we're playing the game in the first place indicates a disasterous miscalculation on someone's part. I think it's on the part of Scott Skiles, since my belief, not totally confirmed, is that he instituted the rule to play a power game with Wallace in the first place.
> 
> It's one thing to have a team dress code. It's another thing to bring a guy in known for doing something (to the extent that the Bulls marketed it!) and then tell him to stop doing it. Abject stupidity is what that is.


I'm pretty sure that's completely false. Again I am flabergasted by these persumptions that Skiles has acted in the most malicious, unreasonable manner anpossible anytime there is a conflict.


> Neither Wallace nor Skiles would admit the reason for the friction, but it seemed obvious that Wallace decided to challenge Skiles’ no-headband rule, which has been in place for more than a year.


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=253762

Maybe Ben Wallace felt that he valued at $60 million contract over being able to wear a headband. Otherwise you'd think he and his agent would have discussed the rule during negotiations. Considering that at least a few other coaches are reported to have the same rule you'd think the existance of such rules would be known around the league. C'mon if the rule is as incredibly offensive as some here are suggesting it would be the talk of the league. I'll say it yet again, I don't think you can alter preexisting team rules to accomodate a superstar you have signed without sending the wrong message to the team.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Ben Wallace has a nice headband . . . . . . for me to poop on.
> 
> Its a stupid rule. But that is not the point. It is the coach's rule and it is to be followed.
> 
> Wallace's conduct is unacceptable. I can say this with complete comfort: If he doesn't cut this ****, I don't care if ever plays another minute for my beloved Bulls.


That pretty much sums my feelings up better than I could have expressed it.

I will say that to suddenly show up to the game with the headband in complete disregard of team rules is pretty reprehensible. Then to try to sneak it back on later in the very same game is completely ridiculous. And this from our captain, a guy that's supposed to be mentoring the young kids.

Wallace forfeited a lot of my respect last night. Hope he can earn it back.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't really care for the example. That's forcing a person to look an exact way not forbidding them from wearing a very specific clothing accessory. I think my examples of restrictions already enforced by the league (length of shorts, sideline attire) are more apt. By the way we do already require everyone to look the same, we force them to wear the same uniform (hence the word uniform)! It is even mandated that players were similar footwear. This is not by any means a drastic departure from the other rules about on court attire forced by the league any by other teams.


I do. Saying no headband is forcing someone to look a certain way. If there's any other reason for it, I'm waiting for it


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

I point the finger at the Bulls organization for preventing their players from wearing a head band. Stripping individuals of their individuality is negatively old school. The Bulls knew Wallace wore the band and was marketed with it. The head band and 'fro are a major part of Ben Wallace's established brand. The Bulls may be hurting him financially by not allowing him to use his brand. Just think if the Bulls would have refused to allow MJ to wear Air Jordan's. Why would you force your star acquisition to change something he felt comfortable doing while winning a championship and receiving DOY awards? Isn't his psyche what's most important? I guaruntee you his teammates don't give a **** one way or the other. This leads me to Skiles. 

I think Skiles is the biggest reason this team is losing. His rigidity and inability to change things to suit his team's talents is grounds for termination. Reinstate the Fire Skiles Club please. Bring on Larry Brown.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

wow, skiles is not gonna win any championships benching his best player.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> I do. Saying no headband is forcing someone to look a certain way. If there's any other reason for it, I'm waiting for it


Because telling people they can't make a certain fashion statement is less restrictive then specifying a precise fashion statement that they must make.  Telling someone they can't wear a headband is liking telling them that they can't wear a mohawk not like telling them they have to wear Scott Skiles haircut. I think something like the example of the shorts rule is far more apt. A player's shorts can be high like Stockton or they can be at their knees but they just can't be very long. The NBA is not saying shorts have to be an exact, identical size for every player, they're just saying there is one size it CANNOT be. Furthermore, hair is a bad example because unlike your shorts or headband, you would have to wear the hairstyle off the court. Finally whether or not you're wearing a headband doesn't drasticly alter a person's physical appearance the way a hair cut does. In fact I'd say it alters physical appearance less than the length of your shorts.

If there's a reason you still think a haircut is a better example than the rule against players wearing long, baggy shorts I'm waiting for it.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

lorgg said:


> I point the finger at the Bulls organization for preventing their players from wearing a head band. Stripping individuals of their individuality is negatively old school.


I'd say it's decidedly new school. The league has implemented the shorts length rule, the off court dress rule, and the tights rule all within the past two seasons.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Pain5155 said:


> wow, skiles is not gonna win any championships benching his best player.


So you just let the player scream at you on the sidelines, fail to show up to practice, fail to show up to game, allow them to mail it in, etc. without any punishment?

I also disagree that Ben Wallace is the Bulls best player. He certainly hasn't been through the first thirteen games.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Not sure if this has been asked yet, but here we go:

When does Ben Wallace get traded?

13 games into his Bulls career and we're getting glimpses of a power struggle. Wrong or right, Paxson and Skiles have been quick to show that no player is bigger than the team. We're talking about less than a fifth of the season here.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

sp00k said:


> Not sure if this has been asked yet, but here we go:
> 
> When does Ben Wallace get traded?
> 
> 13 games into his Bulls career and we're getting glimpses of a power struggle. Wrong or right, Paxson and Skiles have been quick to show that no player is bigger than the team. We're talking about less than a fifth of the season here.


I'd imagine that contract is more or less untradable.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Au Contraire, the Chris Webber and Jalen Rose trades have shown that any contract can get moved. It wouldn't be pretty but I'm sure more than a handful of teams would be willing to take Big Ben off our hands.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

This is no good... Big Ben just called Skiles on a hand that he has almost no chance of winning. When Ben was used in that advertising campaign in a Bulls colors with his headband, I'm sure he saw it as consent. Then Skiles established a new rule banning headbands that seems confusing at best considering that Ben was the only player on the team that wore one, it seems discriminatory at worst or petty at best.

Coaches lose power struggles like this, Skiles hates to lose, this could develop into a real mess!


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

JeremyB0001 said:


> So you just let the player scream at you on the sidelines, fail to show up to practice, fail to show up to game, allow them to mail it in, etc. without any punishment?
> 
> I also disagree that Ben Wallace is the Bulls best player. He certainly hasn't been through the first thirteen games.


I was going to say the same thing, play better or show the coach your at least worth the $60 mill given to you and he won't bench you. 

Who cares about this rule though, it's a HeadBand! Letting the team wear them won't help give them super-skills, just look at the previous teams that wore them, didn't necessarily have us winning much did it?

This rule shouldn't matter much, it might be dumb but look at the White Sox have Crede, Pierzynski cut their hair for being a bit too long. Dumb, yes but the players didn't have a problem doing & neither should the bulls players including Wallace.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm pretty sure that's completely false. Again I am flabergasted by these persumptions that Skiles has acted in the most malicious, unreasonable manner anpossible anytime there is a conflict.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp?id=253762
> 
> Maybe Ben Wallace felt that he valued at $60 million contract over being able to wear a headband. Otherwise you'd think he and his agent would have discussed the rule during negotiations. Considering that at least a few other coaches are reported to have the same rule you'd think the existance of such rules would be known around the league. C'mon if the rule is as incredibly offensive as some here are suggesting it would be the talk of the league. I'll say it yet again, I don't think you can alter preexisting team rules to accomodate a superstar you have signed without sending the wrong message to the team.


Good find, thanks. I was basing my belief on the fact that I've seen plenty of Bulls players wearing headbands under Skiles in the past and I'd not heard anything about the rule until quite recently. Thus, it seemed like it was brought on to be a "Ben Wallace Rule".

So ok, where do we go from here? It would seem likely that Wallace is to blame for breaking the rule, and Paxson and/or Skiles to blame for putting in place such a stupid rule.

And it is a stupid rule when it has a 95% chance of doing nothing really and a 5% chance of creating a major issue with a $60M investment. Risk/reward is way out of wack.

Some folks will take this point as an excuse for Wallace's behavior. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation. While the Bulls and most of us might like to think a rule is a rule and you can run a team without ceding any control, that's simply not the reality of the NBA. When you give a guy a $60M guarantee, you're ceding some control no matter what. ***** about it if you want, but until that underlying truth about the NBA changes, guys are going to act like Ben acted the other night.

A team really has two choices. One choice is to more or less shut itself off from established NBA players (and many other guys it might select). At this point it's hard to imagine how the Bulls could ever be comfortable giving money and thus control to a big name player if they couldn't do it and coexist with Wallace.

The other choice is to relax the nonsense about headbands and actually figuring out how to mold different individuals into a team instead of either only picking from a limited type of player or forcing everyone to change to fit a certain type.

I think someone mentioned it earlier, but can anyone imagine a historically top flight coach or GM, be it a Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach or even a Larry Brown on the coaching end or a Jerry West or Auerbach on the management end having this sort of issue come up?

I don't know whether it's management or the coach or both, but these guys have to learn how to succeed in a world where they aren't always going to get their way. If you want to win, you have to learn which compromises you need to make.

Unfortunately, in the case of Wallace, the damage may already be done. The lessons above need to be learned going forward, but I don't see how, at this point, Wallace is likely to be part of a successful solution here. Even though the rules are stupid and need to be changed, changing them now would cause problems of its own.

Thus, barring a real come to jesus change of heart by Wallace, I'd be looking to move him and salvage as much as possible from this mess.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Unfortunately, in the case of Wallace, the damage may already be done. The lessons above need to be learned going forward, but I don't see how, at this point, Wallace is likely to be part of a successful solution here. Even though the rules are stupid and need to be changed, changing them now would cause problems of its own.


I'm kind of amazed that people here think that if PaxSkiles bent, just once, all order would go out the window. Would people really stop going to practice? Would the team stop working hard? Would no one listen to Skiles anymore? I just don't see it.

Ben acted like a ******* last night, but I still think the brain trust should let him wear the frickin' headband. The team and the coach will retain their identities.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The Bulls are going to have to warn future free agents, rookies, and tradies about this rule. We don't need multiple guys complaining about a rule that can't be changed.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm kind of amazed that people here think that if PaxSkiles bent, just once, all order would go out the window. Would people really stop going to practice? Would the team stop working hard? Would no one listen to Skiles anymore? I just don't see it.
> 
> Ben acted like a ******* last night, but I still think the brain trust should let him wear the frickin' headband. The team and the coach will retain their identities.


I think the rule is pretty ridiculous even when being applied to the ERobs and Crawfords of the world, but it's *really* ridiculous when you consider the world championship and ****load of regular-season/playoff wins the Pistons managed to eek out while Ben was sporting the 'band. 

If and when we do another Q&A with McGraw, we have to remember to ask whether or not the issue of the headband came up before Wallace was signed. I don't think that Skiles's headband ban is as "well-known" as McGraw implies in this article; in fact, as a Piston, I'd say it's dollars to donuts Wallace had absolutely no clue about it.

I don't think the situation is as unsalvageable as MikeDC does, with one caveat: if Ben did know about the headband ban prior to signing with the Bulls, and if he did what he did last night without having gone to Skiles at some point this season and asking him to reconsider the ban, then yeah, I think you pretty much have to trade the guy. Or fire Skiles.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

If the situation is indeed unsalvageable, whats the next move for the franchise? What could Wallace be traded for, how is the team going to be able to fill the 4 and 5 spots in the lineup, and what moves could be made after the trade to move the team forward?


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

IMO this rule is terrible esp if ur going to want to bring in ben wallace who is know to wear a headband for year's now.Why in the world would u want to change his sykie (i know spelled wrong,but u know what i mean) in anyway esp being how much u need him to play at that high level everynight just to win. I think this rule go further then what you guy's are realizing.Because if other star player's see how ben is being treating and un allowed to do basically what makes him feel comterable,why would anyone want to come here.I know everyone say it's all about the money,but i know comfort is in their too,as well as freedom.I'm pretty sure if ben know this rule and maybe other's that have come out in today chi paper,he might have re-thought about signing here.I think skiles need's to let ben try thing's his way for awhile,just to see if he play's any better or diffenrent.If he does then he can keep doing whatever he's been doing.If he still play's bad,or the same then it was clear it didn't matter what rule's where.But just to take a star player right to be himself without a clear reason is just wrong.Ben is a champion,our frachise player,our leader,and our highest paid player,i think whatever he want's to do he should be allowed,because A,i don't seem them as a big deal's,and B SS still control's the min's,and i think SS would def lose his bad player rep.Anyone remember jayson kidd.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I think the rule is pretty ridiculous even when being applied to the ERobs and Crawfords of the world, but it's *really* ridiculous when you consider the world championship and ****load of regular-season/playoff wins the Pistons managed to eek out while Ben was sporting the 'band.


Yeah, and what gets me is how Paxson is such a huge admirer of Joe Dumars and the way he runs his organization. He's praised Dumars many times in the past. If Dumars doesn't think wearing head/arm bands is such a big deal, then Pax needs to consider this too whenever he goes out of his way to praise him. Even Larry Brown, who started "the right way" talk during Detroit's title run, had no problem with head/arm bands. Same with Carlisle. These are all hard-nosed, "right way" type of people and yet they don't feel wearing headbands is a bad thing.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

sp00k said:


> Au Contraire, the Chris Webber and Jalen Rose trades have shown that any contract can get moved. It wouldn't be pretty but I'm sure more than a handful of teams would be willing to take Big Ben off our hands.


True. It's certainly not impossible. I feel like they're becoming less accepted by the day though. More importantly I think Dolan has put the clamps on Isiah in NY and he's taken on about 90% of the bad contracts that've been moved over the past couple seasons.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm kind of amazed that people here think that if PaxSkiles bent, just once, all order would go out the window. Would people really stop going to practice? Would the team stop working hard? Would no one listen to Skiles anymore? I just don't see it.
> 
> Ben acted like a ******* last night, but I still think the brain trust should let him wear the frickin' headband. The team and the coach will retain their identities.


No they won't. PaxSkiles have staked their identities on doing things by their book come hell or high water. That was sort of my point... other teams might do things differently, and the Bulls might be well to do things differently in the future, but I don't see how they can back down out of this particular tree at this particular time and retain a lot of respect.

For a lot of teams, bending would have already been done, quietly, in the form of lifting the headband rule before it became an issue. Doing it now that it's become dirty laundry would seem to be a serious blow to credibility. No, I wouldn't expect it to lead to Kirk Hinrich suddenly smoking blunts while dribbling up the court, but it's still pretty ugly for all to see. If you were Wallace, would you have any respect for someone who caved like that? I doubt it.


----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

Something I posted back in September:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4036528



MLKG said:


> A lot of people in this thread's information on Ben Wallace seems to be several years old.
> 
> What Ben Wallace isn't:
> 
> ...


Chicago made their own bed with this one. If they want to pretend like they didn't know this would happen then they didn't do their homework.

He looks like crap some nights and he'll single handedly win you a game some nights. He's been that way for the last 2 years. Some nights he flat out doesn't have it, some nights he does. I don't think it's a matter of effort either. If it was an effort thing, that would suggest he is able to turn it on/off. But his good and bad games seem to be completely random.

I knew this would happen to him in Chicago. The fans are dissapointed because any time you have a big free agent signing there is going to be excitement, and fans are going to expect to see things they haven't seen before. Sorry, but Ben Wallace isn't that type of player. If you were looking for 20 rebound games and shots being sent away left and right, sorry, but you're about 3 years too late.

The problem with the Bulls right now is that they have Ben Wallace, but they don't seem to have a very good sense of what he is and what he isn't. 

Can't blame anybody but themselves for that.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm kind of amazed that people here think that if PaxSkiles bent, just once, all order would go out the window. Would people really stop going to practice? Would the team stop working hard? Would no one listen to Skiles anymore? I just don't see it.
> 
> Ben acted like a ******* last night, but I still think the brain trust should let him wear the frickin' headband. The team and the coach will retain their identities.


I agree with this 1000%. Acknowledge this was wrong of Wallace, but at the same time acknowledge this policy has been reviewed and Wallace has earned the right to do it. This can come off as a compromise, and not caving in. And if it doesn't I DONT CARE. I just want to win!! I don't think Wallace is over the hill. If he is happy he will produce. We have seen some games this year he was outstanding. 

Man, this looks like the U.S. against the rest of the world in the Iraq debate. SKAXSON, This doesn't have to be politics. It's about a piece of cloth. If the guy wants to wear it because it helps his confidence, identity, etc. then LET HIM WEAR IT. It's like Pax and Skiles want 12 clones on the team. I think of that episode of the Simpsons when Homer is cloned thousands of times. I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE: YOU WILL NOT WIN WITH TWELVE MOMMAS BOY CLONES. The guy has earned the right to show a tiny bit of individuality. I don't think Wallace will take the wearing of a headband to doing an X rated rap CD and shoot someone outside a club at 3 AM. It is innocent....

There must be a way to acknowledge Wallace did wrong, allow him to wear the thing, and also not turn the team into a bunch of gangsters. I don't think Noc and Hinrich will show up the following game with prison tats, nose rings, and headbands the very next game. LET HIM WEAR THE DAMN THING AND BE THE BEN WALLACE HE HAS BEEN THE PAST 6 YEARS. WE DON'T WANT BEN "CHOIR BOY" WALLACE. JUST THE EXACT SAME BEN WALLACE WHO PLAYED FOR THE PISTONS THE LAST 5 YEARS. SWALLOW THE PRIDE, REALIZE THIS ISN'T BOOT CAMP, AND LET HIM WEAR IT!!! WE ARE SICK OF LOSING AND PLAYING SILLY GAMES!!!

Skiles has no chance to coach star players. He probably needs to go.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Because telling people they can't make a certain fashion statement is less restrictive then specifying a precise fashion statement that they must make. Telling someone they can't wear a headband is liking telling them that they can't wear a mohawk not like telling them they have to wear Scott Skiles haircut. I think something like the example of the shorts rule is far more apt. A player's shorts can be high like Stockton or they can be at their knees but they just can't be very long. The NBA is not saying shorts have to be an exact, identical size for every player, they're just saying there is one size it CANNOT be. Furthermore, hair is a bad example because unlike your shorts or headband, you would have to wear the hairstyle off the court. Finally whether or not you're wearing a headband doesn't drasticly alter a person's physical appearance the way a hair cut does. In fact I'd say it alters physical appearance less than the length of your shorts.
> 
> If there's a reason you still think a haircut is a better example than the rule against players wearing long, baggy shorts I'm waiting for it.


Are you serious? I could care less if you think your example is better or not, I didn't know this was a 'pick the best similar situation thread'. The point and question of my post ('I'm waiting'), which I'm still seeking an answer to, had to do with how a rule about headbands has an effect on team unity or any other secondary effect other than being a pretty restrictive aspect of a dress code. The 'Skiles cut' part was meant as a joke, I didn't know someone would overanalyze it to stroke their ego. And infact, when you require a certain hairstyle, you are also restricting a mohawk, afro, etc. You are still indirectly making someone look a certain way by trying to prevent another look. You got me on it being different from your example with off the court, but on the court is the big issue here, and my 'I do' was in response for caring my example, not comparing it to yours. And yes, the headband issue is bad enough, this is already too much time spent on discussing this.


----------



## doomraisin (Jun 23, 2006)

I can't believe we're discussing headbands. It's not the point. The point is abiding by rules and being a team player. Ben Wallace should run around wearing a tiara if they want him to. He needs to STFU and play ball.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

:bananallama:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

One thing is for certain:

There must have been a better way to work this out than such a public display.

Creating a media frenzy over a headband mutiny isn't doing much to help the situation.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://info.detnews.com/pistonsblog/index.cfm

_Is Ben unhappy in Chicago? Yes, he is. He's not throwing in the towel, but the transition hasn't been pleasant. When Skiles and John Paxson came to Ben's house over the summer to make their recruiting pitch, *Ben asked Skiles point-blank if there was anything he needed to know about him, his coaching style or his personal preferences. Skiles told him no, he loved Ben just as he was.* But the minute Ben signed the contract, Skiles pulled him aside and told him that he could no longer wear the headbands and arm bands that had been his trademark in Detroit. *Strike one.*

Skiles has also embarrassed Ben during practice several times -- stopping practice to make him tuck in his shirt and ordering him to tape his ankles (which Ben never does) -- silly power-trippy things like that. *Strike two.*

And now Skiles is yo-yoing him in and out of games -- the ultimate indignity to Ben. Strike three? Nah, probably just a foul tip. Like I said, there's too much at stake for Ben to blow it up this quickly. But, these are not fun times in the Windy City._


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://info.detnews.com/pistonsblog/index.cfm
> 
> _Is Ben unhappy in Chicago? Yes, he is. He's not throwing in the towel, but the transition hasn't been pleasant. When Skiles and John Paxson came to Ben's house over the summer to make their recruiting pitch, *Ben asked Skiles point-blank if there was anything he needed to know about him, his coaching style or his personal preferences. Skiles told him no, he loved Ben just as he was.* But the minute Ben signed the contract, Skiles pulled him aside and told him that he could no longer wear the headbands and arm bands that had been his trademark in Detroit. *Strike one.*
> 
> Skiles has also embarrassed Ben during practice several times -- stopping practice to make him tuck in his shirt and ordering him to tape his ankles (which Ben never does) -- silly power-trippy things like that. *Strike two.*_


Gee, I wonder why Tim Thomas could not play here.

Same BS, except there is more money at stake and Wallace is a better player.

But, rules are rules. No one player is greater than the team. This is the PaxSkiles way.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

The way this situation is being handled doesn't exactly make me believe that another big name would consider coming here without worrying about what they can and cannot do on this team. 

If we get Gasol, do we demand that he is clean shaven for every game?

Can Garnett not wear the rubber bands he's been wearing since high school?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_Don't take a chance on missing that turn-around jumper at the buzzer! With the For Bare Feet NBA Wrist and Headband Set you won't have to worry about sweaty palms or blurry vision during the game! Embroidered NBA logo. 80% cotton/10% nylon/10% rubber. With the NBA wrist and headband set, *you can play worry-free*. Imported. 

This product available for shipping Domestically and Internationally.

Price: $11.99

_



http://store.nba.com/gp/product/B000KNADOA/sr=1-10/qid=1164639981/ref=sr_1_10/104-2528979-0741517?ie=UTF8&n=14197761&league=core


:cowboy:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)




----------



## MLKG (Aug 25, 2003)

LegoHat said:


> The way this situation is being handled doesn't exactly make me believe that another big name would consider coming here without worrying about what they can and cannot do on this team.


At some point the Bulls organization is going to have to stop pretending they are running a high school/college team.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> Are you serious? I could care less if you think your example is better or not, I didn't know this was a 'pick the best similar situation thread'. The point and question of my post ('I'm waiting'), which I'm still seeking an answer to, had to do with how a rule about headbands has an effect on team unity or any other secondary effect other than being a pretty restrictive aspect of a dress code. The 'Skiles cut' part was meant as a joke, I didn't know someone would overanalyze it to stroke their ego. And infact, when you require a certain hairstyle, you are also restricting a mohawk, afro, etc. You are still indirectly making someone look a certain way by trying to prevent another look. You got me on it being different from your example with off the court, but on the court is the big issue here, and my 'I do' was in response for caring my example, not comparing it to yours. And yes, the headband issue is bad enough, this is already too much time spent on discussing this.


Well that's how reasoning through analogy works. You find a similar example and then argue the two thing should be treated the same way. My example suggests this type of behavior is commonplace in the league and yours describes unparalelled control of players' appearance to the most extreme degree possible. It's hard to say that they are not mutually exclusive. 

This is not an issue of "ego stroking," we disagree and I am trying to support my argument. The "Skiles part" was fine as a joke, I chuckled when I first read that but the example was still forcing players to get a specific haircut. If you want to use the example of refusing to allow hair beyond a certain length that would be much more apt. However, that would still not make the control over players' appearances shocking since the Yankees already have that rule in place and it would still be far more extreme since unlike a headband, players' hair affects their appearance off the court. I agree that forbidding a certain haircut or hair length is restrictive, it's just substantially less restrictive than picking a specific haircut and forcing all players to wear it.

I agree that teamheadbands might not have any purpose on the court or actually improve team unity. The best I can come up with is that the Bulls are a product and the organization thinks it's easier to sell them without headbands. Maybe it's just a matter of principle that Reinsdorf dislikes the way headbands look and wants to use his clout to forbid them. My point has never been that it is a good or even logical rule, only that this type of rule is common place throughout sports so no one (Ben in particular) should be acting horrified and shocked all of a sudden that this rule exists, that other players have little trouble obeying such rules, and the Bulls should not be singled out as controlling just because one of their players threw a fit.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

get rid of skiles, problem solved.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MLKG said:


> At some point the Bulls organization is going to have to stop pretending they are running a high school/college team.


In my opinion, for the most part, they are acting like they are running a professional team.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> In my opinion, for the most part, they are acting like they are running a professional team.


And you don't think a headband rule is overkill?


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

chibul said:


> And you don't think a headband rule is overkill?


He did say _for the most part._


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

anorexorcist said:


> get rid of skiles, problem solved.


I think Skiles is a terrific coach, but I also think it's clear that his inability to get along with certain types of players (Ben Wallace, JR Smith) is a substantial liability- one that the team cannot further accomodate. If this situation leads to Skiles quitting or being fired (because I can't envision another scenario where Paxson fires him in the next 2-3 years), then maybe this will all be worthwhile.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> http://info.detnews.com/pistonsblog/index.cfm
> 
> _Is Ben unhappy in Chicago? Yes, he is. He's not throwing in the towel, but the transition hasn't been pleasant. When Skiles and John Paxson came to Ben's house over the summer to make their recruiting pitch, *Ben asked Skiles point-blank if there was anything he needed to know about him, his coaching style or his personal preferences. Skiles told him no, he loved Ben just as he was.* But the minute Ben signed the contract, Skiles pulled him aside and told him that he could no longer wear the headbands and arm bands that had been his trademark in Detroit. *Strike one.*
> 
> ...


These are more or less the same facts as KC's article with the possible added facts of shirt tucking and embarassing Ben in practice. The latter I'm not fond of, I believe discipline should generally take place behind closed doors and not in front of coworkers. Otherwise this is just a different spin from Ben's point of view and frankly I'm not that persauded. First of all, I refuse to believe this scenario where Skiles hovers over Ben's shoulder as he's signing the contract and yells "Gotcha! You can't wear your headband!" Why? Because since the Bulls apparently didn't dig up and correctly interpret character information on Wallace the way they should've, they thought if they paid him $60 million he wouldn't wig out over a headband. Who would have possibly expected that? I'm pretty sure it was an afterthought by management.

Wallace signing based on asking Skiles "Is there anything I should know?" is the most naive thing I've ever heard. Everybody knows that when you have a job interview you're supposed to ask your potential employer specific questions. How is Skiles supposed to know what Ben thinks is and is not important for him to know heading into this situation?! He's not a mind reader. Wallace must've known that Skiles had a reputation of being on the strict side, that rules regulating uniforms have been enforced by the league and various teams, and probably even that some teams in the league have rules forbidding headbands from being worn.

Does anyone think for a second that no one informed Wallace of the rules when he joined the team? Cause I would be shocked if no one bothered to mention to him that music could not be played loudly in the lockerroom (from KC's report it sounded like Skiles pulled him aside that time), that shirts needed to be tucked in, or that players taped their ankles before games/practice? Clearly this is someone who thinks he's above the rules. He disagrees with them and doesn't want to follow them so apparently instead of trying to work something out with the coach and/or GM, he comes out to practice with his ankles untaped and plugs in his headphones with the music blaring so it emanates throughout the locker room. I can't imagine anyone that I know starting a new job, being informed of the new rules, watching their coworkers obeying the new rules, and then openly refusing to abide by them and getting pouty and angry when management calls them on it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Does anyone think for a second that no one informed Wallace of the rules when he joined the team?


We know that Skiles informed Wallace of the rules shortly after he signed his contract. 

The Bulls are free to enact any rules they like, so long as they aren't in violation of the collective bargaining agreement or the players' contracts. But these particular rules are ones that needed to be made transparent BEFORE the contract was signed. Especially when the player apparently asked point-blank if there were any unusual things he should know about before finalizing the agreement.

I find it impossible to believe that PaxSkiles did not know that Ben Wallace played every game wearing headbands and armbands. It's really a topic they should have broached, but they didn't want to scare off the fruits of their three-year campaign for Cap Space.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'm kind of amazed that people here think that if PaxSkiles bent, just once, all order would go out the window. Would people really stop going to practice? Would the team stop working hard? Would no one listen to Skiles anymore? I just don't see it.


I don't think everyone would stop showing up to practice but there is a great deal of emphasis placed on the respect and authority a coach has with his players. I strongly believe it is important to be consistent, because if you behave hypocritically people will lose respect for you. It's not so much that this one issue will lead to disasterous consequences but it will complicate other issues which might become highly problematic. If Skiles caves here, what happens with the taped ankles, the untucked shirts, and the loud music? Wallace will only push harder and be more difficult because he knows that insubordination got him his way once. What if Ben Gordon has been politely begging Skiles to allow headbands for a year? Skiles would alienate Gordon and send the signal to the rest of the team that politely asking for something gets you nowhere and being unruly gets you what you want. One thing leads to another and then while the other players are probably smart enough to avoid open displays of insubordination but the next thing you know guys are constantly talking trash about the coach behind his back (admittedly if you believe some people this already happens) and screwing around (think ERob calling Eddy on his cell phone).


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> We know that Skiles informed Wallace of the rules shortly after he signed his contract.
> 
> The Bulls are free to enact any rules they like, so long as they aren't in violation of the collective bargaining agreement or the players' contracts. But these particular rules are ones that needed to be made transparent BEFORE the contract was signed. Especially when the player apparently asked point-blank if there were any unusual things he should know about before finalizing the agreement.
> 
> I find it impossible to believe that PaxSkiles did not know that Ben Wallace played every game wearing headbands and armbands. It's really a topic they should have broached, but they didn't want to scare off the fruits of their three-year campaign for Cap Space.


Not to be dismissive, I just feel like I'm repeating myself a lot in this thread.



> Wallace signing based on asking Skiles "Is there anything I should know?" is the most naive thing I've ever heard. Everybody knows that when you have a job interview you're supposed to ask your potential employer specific questions. How is Skiles supposed to know what Ben thinks is and is not important for him to know heading into this situation?! He's not a mind reader. Wallace must've known that Skiles had a reputation of being on the strict side, that rules regulating uniforms have been enforced by the league and various teams, and probably even that some teams in the league have rules forbidding headbands from being worn.


There are a vast number of things you learn about any job over the days weeks and months you spend there. I doubt Pax and Skiles told Ben nothing about the organization. They probably told him things like plans for the team, the role they saw him playing there. There is only so much those two can forsee as far as things Wallace might be concerned about as far as the workings of the team. That's why the burden is on him to be thorough and ask specific questions if there are things important to him. Knowing a player likes to wear headbands is not the same as knowing he might turn down a $60 million dollar contract because he's not allowed to wear them. Most people would wear a slightly different wardrobe at work for not an extra $12 million dollars.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

From reading the Trib I gathered this may be a Reinsdorf rule, but at the very least it is in no way a given that it is a Skiles rule. Many are quick to pin it on Skiles. 

I find it rather comforting that Skiles doesn't miss a single damn thing when he's looking at the basketball court. I find this rather appealing in my head coach. He's an X's and O's guru, knows exactly what everyone is and isn't doing and can even enforce team policy on the fly. Seriously, whats not to like?

Have any of those that are quick to condemn Skiles notice that Skiles has essentially covered for Wallace so far? Did anyone that thinks Hinrich is his pet rock notice Skiles criticism of his defense on the Bulls Eye?

I happen to like the job Skiles has done and and am in no hurry to usher him to the door. Of course, I also believe we'd be no worse off with the same exact roster with the exception of Chandler for Wallace. Sadly, I was in the keep Chandler camp. 

Headband, no headband? Phooey. Wallace is just making excuses and this is the most visible and legit in his mind to connect an excuse to his poor play. In all fairness, posters were calling for Skiles job when Chandler got pulled for the untucked shirt. Did I mention Chandler isn't here anymore?

You know, I never felt comfortable wearing a suit but when thats what the job calls for, well. Why not business casual? When I'm comfortable I work better. Hell, why not casual Friday? It's the ultimate comfort no? C'mon, let me get my mojo back - it's not like I'm asking to wear a headband or anything. 

Ben Wallace is ridiculous. It's like we've got the mute version of Jalen Rose. I agree with some earlier posters. It's not about a headband. Its about Ben Wallace looking for a scapegoat for his play and making people like me continue to doubt trading Chandler.

Chandler
<TABLE class="playerStatTable careerAvg" borderColor=#cccccc cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=1><TBODY><TR class=title><TD class=year>Year</TD><TD class=team>Team</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>GS</TD><TD>MPG</TD><TD>FG%</TD><TD>3p%</TD><TD>FT%</TD><TD>OFF</TD><TD>DEF</TD><TD>RPG</TD><TD>APG</TD><TD>SPG</TD><TD>BPG</TD><TD>TO</TD><TD>PF</TD><TD>PPG</TD></TR><TR class=odd><TD class=yr>06-07</TD><TD class=tm>NOK</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>30.8</TD><TD>.667</TD><TD>.000</TD><TD>.364</TD><TD>4.0</TD><TD>7.5</TD><TD>11.5</TD><TD>1.0</TD><TD>0.6</TD><TD>0.8</TD><TD>1.08</TD><TD>3.50</TD><TD>5.8</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Wallace
<TABLE class="playerStatTable careerAvg" borderColor=#cccccc cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=1><TBODY><TR class=title><TD class=year>Year</TD><TD class=team>Team</TD><TD>G</TD><TD>GS</TD><TD>MPG</TD><TD>FG%</TD><TD>3p%</TD><TD>FT%</TD><TD>OFF</TD><TD>DEF</TD><TD>RPG</TD><TD>APG</TD><TD>SPG</TD><TD>BPG</TD><TD>TO</TD><TD>PF</TD><TD>PPG</TD></TR><TR class=odd><TD class=yr>06-07</TD><TD class=tm>CHI</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>13</TD><TD>33.8</TD><TD>.417</TD><TD>.000</TD><TD>.457</TD><TD>4.4</TD><TD>4.8</TD><TD>9.2</TD><TD>1.8</TD><TD>1.6</TD><TD>1.5</TD><TD>1.23</TD><TD>2.40</TD><TD>5.5</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> Have any of those that are quick to condemn Skiles notice that Skiles has essentially covered for Wallace so far? Did anyone that thinks Hinrich is his pet rock notice Skiles criticism of his defense on the Bulls Eye?


Great post, great point. It is possible that Skiles is giving Ben a hard time in practice but he's been extremely protective of him with the press despite Ben's apparent repeated subordination. I'll bet he feels betrayed by Wallace and those members of the press lashing out at him after he said nothing but nice things about Ben for months even when he was struggling.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> We know that Skiles informed Wallace of the rules shortly after he signed his contract.


No we don't. We know that "a close source to Wallace" said that this is how it went down. We know that Chris McCoskey of Detroit, who spent the last 5 months crying like a baby about Wallace to Chicago, also says that Ben wasn't informed.

Perhaps this is how it went down. But I'll need something more to accept it as a "fact". 

Sorry, but Skiles and Paxson have earned more credibility from me in the area of forthrightness than Chris McCoskey and Ben "I'm going to show my _forthrightness_ by sneaking on a headband in a public fit of protest, not once, but twice during a game" Wallace. 

As for as I'm concerned, anything Ben Wallace says at this point on the matter is false until proven true by an independent source. And that does not include Pistons sports writers or "sources close to" Big Benedict. 

We are glossing over the fact that this $60 million team captain mutinied against the coach 13 games into the season over whether or not he should be afforded preferential treatment above that of his teammates and allowed to wear a sweatband.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> There are a vast number of things you learn about any job over the days weeks and months you spend there. I doubt Pax and Skiles told Ben nothing about the organization. They probably told him things like plans for the team, the role they saw him playing there. There is only so much those two can forsee as far as things Wallace might be concerned about as far as the workings of the team. That's why the burden is on him to be thorough and ask specific questions if there are things important to him. Knowing a player likes to wear headbands is not the same as knowing he might turn down a $60 million dollar contract because he's not allowed to wear them. Most people would wear a slightly different wardrobe at work for not an extra $12 million dollars.


This is a ludicrous cop-out on several levels.

One, the vast majority (27 or 28 out of 30) NBA teams allow their players to wear headbands. So let's just stop throwing around the straw-man analogies to our own workplace's rules and regulations -- "My employer wouldn't let me wear sweatpants to meetings" and so forth. None of those apply. The Bulls have chosen to take a perversely outside-the-norm stance on a particular issue, and it is incumbent upon them to make such a stance perfectly transparent to incoming players, especially those who are coming of their own free will.

Two, PaxSkiles knew full well that the headband/armband look was part of Wallace's DNA. In fact, their failure to disclose the policy upfront leads me to conclude that they knew it might be a deal-breaker for Wallace, so they swept it under the rug and left it to be hashed out another day.

When it is more important for a team to enforce a headband policy than it is for a team to be completely forthright with a prospective free agent about expectations, some weird and ugly **** is going to happen.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

If it was so damn important to Ben, then his lawyers and agents served him pretty badly in this regard.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> This is a ludicrous cop-out on several levels.
> 
> One, the vast majority (27 or 28 out of 30) NBA teams allow their players to wear headbands. So let's just stop throwing around the straw-man analogies to our own workplace's rules and regulations -- "My employer wouldn't let me wear sweatpants to meetings" and so forth. None of those apply. The Bulls have chosen to take a perversely outside-the-norm stance on a particular issue, and it is incumbent upon them to make such a stance perfectly transparent to incoming players, especially those who are coming of their own free will.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with Scott on this post, the Bulls used Ben's look (headband/armband) as the centerpiece of their advertising campaign, please dont tell me that this potential issue went unoticed.

Its similar to signing Dennis Rodman and then banning tattoo's!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

What is bizarre to me is that if the Bulls really think that headbanks look so terrible, why have pictures of BW with all that stuff on in all of their marketing materials. I know those are different departments, but geez.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If this were any normal, non-military institution, issues such as dress codes would be discussed in open group meetings if there were significant dissent. Management's role would be to listen and explain the rational for the current rule. The point of the group meeting would be to reach a consensus on the policy.

It's just bad management technique to use dictatorial powers over small issues like dress code without asking for employee input.

Once a teapot tempest like this is created in the absence of a consensus, the best thing for management to do is to re-open the policy for review and call a team meeting of all concerned. In this case, it seems to me that the Bull's marketing department has a significant interest in allowing optional attire. There is money to be made by all concerned; and the function of the game is to make money.

Military metaphors don't fit in the entertainment world, which thrives on novelty and unconventionality. In the end, Skiles is wrong and Wallace is right in this case; even if Wallace should have used other ways of getting the policy changed [like going to the press with sarcastic statements ridiculing the policy] rather than letting the petty harrassment affect his play.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> This is a ludicrous cop-out on several levels.
> 
> One, the vast majority (27 or 28 out of 30) NBA teams allow their players to wear headbands. So let's just stop throwing around the straw-man analogies to our own workplace's rules and regulations -- "My employer wouldn't let me wear sweatpants to meetings" and so forth. None of those apply. The Bulls have chosen to take a perversely outside-the-norm stance on a particular issue, and it is incumbent upon them to make such a stance perfectly transparent to incoming players, especially those who are coming of their own free will.
> 
> ...


You're right. Much like OJ, if you can't prove Wallace knew beyond a shadow of anyones doubt then we must assume he didn't know and he should be allowed to do whatever makes him comfy. Ok.

Maybe Paxson and Skiles did understand it was a part of Wallace's image, but maybe they thought they had given him $12 million extra reasons to buy into THEIR program.

As for the marketing...whatever. Bulls really do crash through busses pre-game. Ok.

You're quick to slam everyones assumptions while totally dismissing the fact Wallace should have had some assumptions of his own with regard to what sort of program he just signed up with. 

Paxson and Skiles have hardly flown under the radar when it comes to running this program their way. Just ask ERob, Tim Thomas or the rest of the league and I think we'll find this thing wasn't the mystery its made out to be.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> This is a ludicrous cop-out on several levels.
> 
> One, the vast majority (27 or 28 out of 30) NBA teams allow their players to wear headbands. So let's just stop throwing around the straw-man analogies to our own workplace's rules and regulations -- "My employer wouldn't let me wear sweatpants to meetings" and so forth. None of those apply. The Bulls have chosen to take a perversely outside-the-norm stance on a particular issue, and it is incumbent upon them to make such a stance perfectly transparent to incoming players, especially those who are coming of their own free will.


If 10% of potential employers in my field imposed a rule I found to be wholly unacceptable and I knew would make me regret my decision to work there down the line, I would specifically ask about that rule before signing on. Furthermore you have to figure that Skiles' strict reputation and Reinsdorf's insistance that White Sox players cut their hair would increase that probability that there would be such a rule. If Wallace doesn't know that personally, it is his agents job to point it out to him and ask the Bulls these sorts of questions.

"Perversely outside the norm" is an absurd characterization and certainly does not apply to something being done by 10% of employers. To me that indicates an unparalleled act, whereas there are multiple other teams with an identical rule and counless other similar rules throughout pro sports (no baggy shorts, no tights, dress code regulations for players on the bench, the Yankees' rule about facial hair and long hair, the Knick's rule about wearing suits on the road, the White Sox' rule about long hair). Outside the norm? Maybe. But if something is not uncommon I don't see how it can be "perversely outside the norm." 



ScottMay said:


> Two, PaxSkiles knew full well that the headband/armband look was part of Wallace's DNA. In fact, their failure to disclose the policy upfront leads me to conclude that they knew it might be a deal-breaker for Wallace, so they swept it under the rug and left it to be hashed out another day.


Really? I knew he wore them but had no idea he defined himself through them until now. I only heard posters on this board mention he should wear one after he was struggling. I saw no one predict a controversy over the rule, only dissapointment that he wouldn't be sporting his trademark look and maybe fear that the rule was new and meant as a challenge to Ben (which it wasn't).



ScottMay said:


> When it is more important for a team to enforce a headband policy than it is for a team to be completely forthright with a prospective free agent about expectations, some weird and ugly **** is going to happen.


There are sometimes rules where management makes it known it is more a written rule than something that always must be obeyed. Employees frequently violate these types of rules and management verly clearly looks the other way. This is not one of those rules. No one else on the team wears a headband. Wallace wants to be an exception to the rule or to have longstanding rules changed on account of his presence. That's an affront not only to management but to his teammates who have willingly obeyed the team's rules. There wasn't really an opportunity to just not enforce the policy and still come out ahead.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I almost hate to write this because I think the real issue - Benedict Wallace's selfish, disgraceful, mutinous conduct - is being ignored. 

But do you guys really think that in the NBA, with all the dress code stuff that went down in the last year, in a league with mere hundreds of athletes, with several teams with no-headband policies in a league where lots of guys wear headbands, that it would be unknown to the head-band wearing players in that league which teams had such rules?

That these guys don't all talk about this stuff like gossipy hens and that it gets passed around from locker room to locker room? 

I'm sorry, I find that notion to be completely fantastical.

I say this only because it has become an issue for discussion, not because I consider it a legitimate issue in the context of Wallace's one man insurrection.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

SPIN DOCTOR said:


> I completely agree with Scott on this post, the Bulls used Ben's look (headband/armband) as the centerpiece of their advertising campaign, please dont tell me that this potential issue went unoticed.
> 
> Its similar to signing Dennis Rodman and then banning tattoo's!


It was the marketing team who created the advertising campaign and it's not as though they somehow accentuated the headband. It was "fear the fro" not "fear the 'band". The Bulls are a large organization so I'm not sure it's fair to expect perfect synchronization across all the different departments.

Tattoo's are permanent and the Bulls didn't sign Ben and make the rule it was already in place.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> What is bizarre to me is that if the Bulls really think that headbanks look so terrible, why have pictures of BW with all that stuff on in all of their marketing materials. I know those are different departments, but geez.


Doesn't Steve Schanwald report directly either to Reinsdorf or Paxson?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

McBulls said:


> If this were any normal, non-military institution, issues such as dress codes would be discussed in open group meetings if there were significant dissent. Management's role would be to listen and explain the rational for the current rule. The point of the group meeting would be to reach a consensus on the policy.
> 
> It's just bad management technique to use dictatorial powers over small issues like dress code without asking for employee input.


I mean if there's enough unhappiness it's not good for a business and management will consider a change but I've never worked anywhere where the rules were determined democratically by the employees. You're forgetting that 1) we don't know for sure that player input wasn't gather when the rule was imposed over a year ago 2) we don't know that anyone other than Wallace has a problem with the rule 3) there's no evidence that Wallace attempted to voice his displeasure at any point, he just violated the rule.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ben Wallace has a clue.

I wonder if he'd join the Fire Skiles club yet?


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> It was the marketing team who created the advertising campaign and it's not as though they somehow accentuated the headband. It was "fear the fro" not "fear the 'band". The Bulls are a large organization so I'm not sure it's fair to expect perfect synchronization across all the different departments.
> 
> Tattoo's are permanent and the Bulls didn't sign Ben and make the rule it was already in place.


I have been a VP/GM for a F50 company that is much larger than the Bulls organization. Let me tell you that is not how it works when you have a major change in your brand identity, such as the Wallace signing. Sr management approves the conceptual, test, and rollout of all campaigns. This means they have full control and final OK over images and content, it was not a sync issue, though it could be used as a weak excuse if all else fails.

It was acceptable for the image to sell tickets to the fanbase, but its unacceptable for Ben to participate in games wearing his brand, see the conflict? I could go on but this is really a silly issue that needs resolution before it gets any bigger. 

I was thinking back to the Darius Miles cornrow flap of a few years ago, but I see that Sam Smith gave it a mention in the Trib this morning. It is that silly really, but given the maturity level of most NBA players, do not think that they are taking notice of whats happening in Chicago. In an earlier post I mentioned that Skiles loses this issue, because regardless of the outcome, he will lose internally or externally. 

Ben committed the cardinal sin of making this public.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Fire Skiles


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

SPIN DOCTOR said:


> I have been a VP/GM for a F50 company that is much larger than the Bulls organization.


Well i once had dinner sitting a few seats away from Dave Duerson and his wife. it was only mere months before he beat her and got arrested!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*UPDATE!*


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...27bulls,1,936192.story?coll=cs-home-headlines




> Bulls general manager John Paxson spoke at length with Ben Wallace for a second straight day Monday, trying to make sure Wallace's insubordination from last Saturday night didn't fester.
> 
> "I don't expect this to cause our team to fracture, which is always something you worry about," Paxson said.
> 
> ...



so it's pax's rule. 

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_whatsgoinon/2006/11/truth_in_bulls_.html




> *Truth in Bulls' advertising?*
> 
> The Bulls might have a problem with Ben Wallace wearing a headband now, but they certainly didn't when they were using him to sell tickets.
> 
> ...





i seriously want to know why his headband image was used all over town to promote the bulls and this, apparently AFTER the rule was apparently explained.

i smell a rat. and it's not coming from the players lockerroom either.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

1) I don't like the "no headband rule." When I played basketball in HS, I didn't need a headband because I had a fairly luxuriant head of hair that served as a sponge keeping sweat from running in my eyes. By my mid 20s, I took to wearing a headband because my "sponge" had more holes than substance and I hated the sting. To me, a headband isn't always a fashion statement. It has a functional purpose. I have sympathy for Wallace's desire to wear the band.

2) If wearing a headband is important to Wallace, he should have made his case to Skiles and asked for an exception. If Skiles rejected the request, Wallace just had to live with it.

3) When Wallace decided that he'd "test the rule" by ignoring it DURING A GAME, he COMPLETELY lost me as an ally. What a jerk.

To me, it's not about headbands or stupid rules. MY BULLS were O-for-the-road-trip and Wallace elected to put the Knicks game in jeopardy by being an idiot. Wallace is definitely on my S-list.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_*It was more out of uniformity than anything else. It wasn't to take an individual's personality away from the game.*_

um, pax? doesn't player uniformity directly oppose player individuality? 


that hole keeps getting deeper and deeper!! 


need. to. find. pitchfork.


----------



## SirCharles34 (Nov 16, 2004)

I haven't read all the comments here, but it looks to me like Wallace's agent should've looked at the little things besides the dollars and cents to make sure his client is comfortable in his new environment. 

If it was all about getting paid and nothing else, then Big Ben deserves what he's getting for not checking out the team rules, etc... 

On the other side of the coin, it's a pretty dumb rule imo. If I were the Bulls management, that's one rule I'd consider dropping just to make eveyone, including your "big investment" happy.

Just curious, how long has this rule been in effect? Cause didn't Rodman use to wear a head band and did all sorts of other ridiculous nonsense? They didn't seem to have a problem with that..


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

this from the KC update article.

_Skiles, who once as a player fought Shaquille O'Neal in practice, *seemed almost giddy* in talking about the incident, saying it could promote team unity._


what a tool. i hope they all wear headbands in warmups on tuesday night!!!


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

an extra part to the story..



> Skiles, who once as a player fought Shaquille O'Neal in practice, seemed almost giddy in talking about the incident, saying it could promote team unity.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...7bulls,1,936192.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

lets hope skiles is right. lets hope this brings some unity to this new group. because quite frankly i havn't seen any sort of unity or togetherness within the team that i have seen the past 2 years. all there congratualting gestures seemed like formality.. i just don't like the continuity within the team this year. everyone seems to be going about it there own way, and thats the most disturbing thing about it all. 

i hope your right skiles, and this starts to bring on some team unity.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> this from the KC update article.
> 
> _Skiles, who once as a player fought Shaquille O'Neal in practice, *seemed almost giddy* in talking about the incident, saying it could promote team unity._
> 
> ...


you read my mind!


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

SirCharles34 said:


> I haven't read all the comments here, but it looks to me like Wallace's agent should've looked at the little things besides the dollars and cents to make sure his client is comfortable in his new environment.
> 
> If it was all about getting paid and nothing else, then Big Ben deserves what he's getting for not checking out the team rules, etc...
> 
> ...


rodman never wore a headband.. though he did many things ridiculous. 

i would have rodman and his many problems over the Big Baby any day of the week!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

That article clears some things up:



> Skiles said he first informed Wallace of the rule on the day the Bulls unveiled Wallace at a United Center news conference, trumpeting his four-year, $60 million salary.


Okay. I will now concede that the team didn't tell Wallace about the rule. I will not, however, concede that he asked about rules like this and was told that none existed.



> "Every year, Scott and I go over the team handbook," Paxson said. "If there are things we want to change, we change them. That rule was borne out of some things I saw when I first got the job that didn't look good. It was more out of uniformity than anything else. It wasn't to take an individual's personality away from the game. Anything can be revisited. But I'm not saying that rule is going to be revisited tomorrow."


It isn't Skiles' rule. It isn't Reinsdorf's rule. Its Paxson's rule. This may afford a somewhat graceful way out of the situation that doesn't destroy Skiles' credibility with the players. In fact, I hope that is what Paxson is hinting at. 



> Skiles, who once as a player fought Shaquille O'Neal in practice, seemed almost giddy in talking about the incident, saying it could promote team unity.


I wish KC had provided more detail than this about Skiles' comments.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wow.

Just a few days ago, I said the first thing I'd change is the no-headband rule, especially for Wallace.

The question here has become whether the organization taking on its big free agent and aclaimed NBA superstar is a uniting factor or a divisive one.

As I also wrote a few days ago, it's becoming very clear to me that Skiles is best suited as a college coach, where he can treat the players like amateurs who are lucky to get playing time.

At some point, the team is made up of professional players and stars, and they should be treated as such.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/bulls/multimedia/bulls_confidential.html




> The Bulls returned to practice on Monday but all the attention centered on the issue of Ben Wallace and his attempt in wearing a headband in Saturday's win in New York. It is a team rule not to wear headbands and Wallace violated them. And as for the Coach Scott Skiles he says rules are rules. *"Everybody has a different standard about what they considered are restrictive rules to them and what they considered are just you know consideration of other people, you know so I think it is all relative. It depends on what you personally believe in and it is just something that we believe in. And it kind of revolves around tuck your shirts in, no headbands and be on time. That is the gist of it. I don't think that is anything out of the ordinary." *
> 
> General Manager John Paxton also met with the media on Monday and said the timing of Saturday's incident certainly was not a good thing for anybody, especially with the players and the team. "I feel badly that this happen that this has been brought, that there is so much tension with something like this. And it comes on the heel of us not playing well too which is obviously my biggest concern but I plan on getting this settled. It has to be. I cannot allow this to fracture our team and I don't think it will."





just how badly does pax feel that the fro/headband imagery was used TO SELL THE PRODUCT all summer long. i know, i know, i feel like this horse has almost been beaten to a pulp, and some may think it is a minor thing, but i want to know!!!!! and i think ben wallace would want to know this as well.

ugh.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> _*It was more out of uniformity than anything else. It wasn't to take an individual's personality away from the game.*_
> 
> um, pax? doesn't player uniformity directly oppose player individuality?
> 
> ...




I read that statement to mean that the rule was not aimed at particular individuals. People need to be individuals, teams need to have cohesive, similar elements. It's a fine balance.

Paxson seems smart enough to find it. Why shouldn't he be given the benefit of the doubt and some time to do so by the fans?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

SPIN DOCTOR said:


> I have been a VP/GM for a F50 company that is much larger than the Bulls organization. Let me tell you that is not how it works when you have a major change in your brand identity, such as the Wallace signing. Sr management approves the conceptual, test, and rollout of all campaigns. This means they have full control and final OK over images and content, it was not a sync issue, though it could be used as a weak excuse if all else fails.
> 
> It was acceptable for the image to sell tickets to the fanbase, but its unacceptable for Ben to participate in games wearing his brand, see the conflict? I could go on but this is really a silly issue that needs resolution before it gets any bigger.


I guess what a lot of this comes down to is that I never saw a headband as part of Wallace's identity the way some people seem to. I can understand how if he is known for wearing a headband that putting up advertisements they would have been capitalizing on the headband and it would be a major contradiction. I see the fro that way and the Bulls obviously capitalized on it with the "fear the fro" campaign but he was allowed to wear that. Iverson has worn a headband most of his career but I don't think of it as a key trait of his and wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't wearing it tomorrow. If you see the headband as an inconsequential accessory worn by lots of guys around the league, most fans wouldn't take much notice over it in an ad and you can understand how management might not think much of allowing it in an advertisement or even overlooking it entirely.


----------



## Xantos (Jan 8, 2003)

Somewhere Tyson is laughing is [edit] off....I still think all of this is a bunch of BS. I rule is a rule. Respect it. Who would have ever thought a Headband would stir up such a storm. Unbeliveable!

My concern is the perception of the Bulls throughout the league. It took us so long for big time players to want to come here...Now I think that perception might have changed again. 

Do you think KG doesn't listen to his mp3 player? Or what if he doesn't want his ankles taped?? Lighten up Pax and Skiles. This is not the 1950's.....I still shake my head at both sides.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=314056

hmmmm.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Xantos said:


> Somewhere Tyson is laughing is [edit] off....


Somewhere Phil Jackson is laughing his *** off.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> As I also wrote a few days ago, it's becoming very clear to me that Skiles is best suited as a college coach, where he can treat the players like amateurs who are lucky to get playing time.
> 
> At some point, the team is made up of professional players and stars, and they should be treated as such.


Isn't following rules and conducting oneself within the parameters of team expectations the epitome of professional behavior?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Isn't following rules and team expectations the epitome of professional behavior?


Yes, but you don't hire Robin Williams and tell him (expect him) not to make jokes.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Isn't following rules and conducting oneself within the parameters of team expectations the epitome of professional behavior?


your right and we could probably find some middle aged guys at the Y who would be more than willing to cross their t's and dot their i's so to speak, probably for a lot less money too!

ACE


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

SirCharles34 said:


> Just curious, how long has this rule been in effect? Cause didn't Rodman use to wear a head band and did all sorts of other ridiculous nonsense? They didn't seem to have a problem with that..


It's a Paxson rule. 

The behavior of Jordan and Rodman and Pippen and others that helped us to 6 championships doesn't' match up to the PaxSkiles standards. Too bad we had PJax letting those slackers get away with that stuff.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Isn't following rules and conducting oneself within the parameters of team expectations the epitome of professional behavior?


Sure, but isn't setting rules and parameters an effort to get the best environment for a team and maximum production out of the players? Does this rule seem to foster this?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> your right and we could probably find some middle aged guys at the Y who would be more than willing to cross their t's and dot their i's so to speak, probably for a lot less money too!
> 
> ACE


Gee, lets take the blatent, unfair stereotype and go to the other extreme -- we could pay a bunch of young gangbangers from the basketball court at Statesville Correctional just enough to pay their dentist for fancy grills, commission a gold encrusted pimp cup and buy some weed and crack and let the guys go out and play free-for-all, rules be damned -- rock those headbands, ALKN and GDN.

Its called reductio ad absurdum.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'll install Statesville Correctional as 3 point favorites over YMCA Pickup!

This is the late game on ESPN 8 (the Ocho) tonight, right?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I'll install Statesville Correctional as 3 point favorites over YMCA Pickup!
> 
> This is the late game on ESPN 8 (the Ocho) tonight, right?





:laugh:





_*Cotton McKnight:* Do you believe in unlikelihoods? Average Joe's shocking the dodgeball world and upsetting Globo Gym in the championship match!

*Pepper Brooks:* Unbelievable! 

*Cotton McKnight:* Ladies and gentlemen, I have been to the Great Wall of China, I have seen the Pyramids of Egypt, I've even witnessed a grown man satisfy a camel. But never in all my years as a sportscaster have I witnessed something as improbable, as impossible, as what we've witnessed here today! _


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but they took out the basketball courts at Stateville a long time ago, after a dispute in a game of horse being played by Leopold and Loeb.


----------

