# OT: McCallum: NBA Unjustly Cast as Bogeyman



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Covering the NBA these days is not unlike carrying the mail: You're flabbergasted when you get a compliment. Whenever strangers find out what I do (a couple weeks ago it happened at a wedding reception), I inevitably get what I call the Old White Guy Sermon. (There may in fact be old black guys delivering the same sermon -- I just haven't heard them.)
> 
> The Old White Guy Sermon (hereafter the OWGS) begins with a paean to the past. The sacred names of Bird, Jordan and Magic are conjured up, and sometimes we go back to West and Robertson and sometimes all the way back to Cousy and Russell. Then we move to last year's riot at the Palace of Auburn Hills. Then it's on to Allen Iverson and how he has single-handedly destroyed the city of Philadelphia, if not the entire republic. There is generally a dissertation on how traveling and double-dribbling are never called by optically challenged NBA referees. A mention of corn rows and tattoos can be reliably predicted. And quite often the OWGS ends with a tip of the fedora to the sacred game of college basketball and a reverie on how wonderful the world would be if everybody played like Duke.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jack_mccallum/11/10/complaints/index.html

I've gotten the OWGS in airports and hotel/sports bars all over the country, although often times it's not delivered as, uh, sensitively as McCallum describes. 

Which is too bad. I think the NBA is the strongest professional league in the country, and by a pretty wide margin.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I know what you mean -- I've especially heard the less polite version since I moved down here to the Sunshine State.

McCallum wrote a great piece, and did a nice job debunking some of the half-*** theories I hear spouted all the time.

I will defend the OWGS in one regard:

Refs DO NOT properly call traveling and double-dribble, to the detriment of the game.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Mostly the old guys are just mad the new guys don't have to wear short shorts.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I know what you mean -- I've especially heard the less polite version since I moved down here to the Sunshine State.
> 
> I will defend the OWGS in one regard:
> 
> Refs DO NOT properly call traveling and double-dribble, to the detriment of the game.


I saw the Antichrist himself, Allen Iverson, get whistled for carrying AND traveling yesterday.

I know it's not always called to the letter of the law. But neither is holding in the NFL, and don't even get me started on strike zones, and I think the latter two examples have a far more dramatic impact on their respective sports than do non-calls on palming/traveling.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I get this all the time as well. People sometimes look at me like I'm some kind of alien when I say the NBA is my favorite sport.

The OWGS was much more prevalent during the Jalen/Jamal era in Chicago and the western suburbs of Chicago especially than it is now. 

I love the Iverson reference.... Iverson is always mentioned in an OWGS.... always.

I used to travel to Memphis a lot for work... it was even worse down there.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I think the writer failed to address a key league problem which is the deterioration of "winning" basketball as evidenced by the USA's recent international failures. 

Additionally, I find my self losing interest in the game because of the inordant amount of arbitrary ticky-tack fouls the refs call at the command, assumidly, of Stern who is dead set on eliminating the physical play of the mid-nineties. The NBA needs to increase the size of the court so that the bigger an more athletic players of today can play in your face defense without nine million stoppages of play.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I get this all the time as well. People sometimes look at me like I'm some kind of alien when I say the NBA is my favorite sport.


Same here. Most of my friends think I'm crazy that I watch every minute of every game, especially during the 6 losing seasons. I can't think of one person I know in my non-internet world (besides myself) whose favorite professional sport is the NBA.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah Iverson...it's been rough because I love basketball and for the post jordan era Iverson was my favorite player. The OWGS happens all the time. I was in getting checked up by the doctor and he gave me the OWGS. And it was it was flat out racist. Not racial. Racist. And it was centered on Iverson. It was all I could do from taking a swing at the guy. If he wasn't treating me at the time, I would have.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

> It doesn't matter that Bryant and Tim Duncan and Ray Allen and Dwyane Wade and Chauncey Billups and Grant Hill and Elton Brand and Richard Jefferson and Michael Redd and Ben Wallace and Bruce Bowen and Emeka Okafor and Chris Bosh (and that's not even to get into the white guys) are about as hip-hop and urban as Larry Bird and John Stockton.


"Who?" Thats the answer you'll get if you ask a non-NBA fan about those players.

IMO, the league could market them better. I doubt anyone in Chicago knows who Bosh is.


Oh...and he nails the NFL.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

and yet when the race card is played ....its a horrible thing.

people have to remember it is often played because that what it is.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The guy makes the argument that other sports have showoffs and jackdonkeys too and therefore people are being unfair in descriminating against the NBA. Did he ever think that perhaps people just find the other sports more enjoyable?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> The guy makes the argument that other sports have showoffs and jackdonkeys too and therefore people are being unfair in descriminating against the NBA. Did he ever think that perhaps people just find the other sports more enjoyable?


then they should say that ,but that somehow these attributes are put on the nba(not so incedently the blackest league) can really only be taken one way.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Yeah Iverson...it's been rough because I love basketball and for the post jordan era Iverson was my favorite player. The OWGS happens all the time. I was in getting checked up by the doctor and he gave me the OWGS. And it was it was flat out racist. Not racial. Racist. And it was centered on Iverson. It was all I could do from taking a swing at the guy. If he wasn't treating me at the time, I would have.


I think that as diehard NBA fans, every single poster on this message board has probably heard the Old White Guy Sermon more than once. I was watching the NBA Finals this summer with a few of my co-workers who weren't really basketball fans. During a post-game interview, I don't remember who was being interviewed, but he was really fired up and not making much sense. My friend remarked that basketball players seemed to be stupid people, and the sermon went on from there. I kept my mouth shut, but I couldn't understand how an intelligent young man, who happened to be one of the nicest and most polite people I'd ever met, could say something so offensive and racist. A lot of people in this country carry prejudice under the surface, and there's nothing that brings it to the forefront like a conversation about NBA basketball.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> The guy makes the argument that other sports have showoffs and jackdonkeys too and therefore people are being unfair in descriminating against the NBA. Did he ever think that perhaps people just find the other sports more enjoyable?


I think people enjoying other sports moreso than bball is at least in some cases part of the equation. But that doesn't account for all the "the players are thugs" talk you hear and see spouted off by people about the NBA. If the transgressions real or imagined on the part of the NBA are so horrible that you can't bear to watch, then how coud many of these same individuals manage to watch the NFL religiously? I'd say pretty much nobody in the NBA has anything on the Lewises of the Baltimore. I've thought about it, and I have to say I think maybe Larry Bird was right. Maybe if the NBA had its white American superstars like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, people would have more interest in the league.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I think people enjoying other sports moreso than bball is at least in some cases part of the equation. But that doesn't account for all the "the players are thugs" talk you hear and see spouted off by people about the NBA. If the transgressions real or imagined on the part of the NBA are so horrible that you can't bear to watch, then how coud many of these same individuals manage to watch the NFL religiously? I'd say pretty much nobody in the NBA has anything on the Lewises of the Baltimore. I've thought about it, and I have to say I think maybe Larry Bird was right. Maybe if the NBA had its white American superstars like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, people would have more interest in the league.


Great post. I raised this point during the discussions following the Riot at Auburn Hills last year. 

Imagine if the "Sex Cruise" happened with the T-Wolves, not the Vikings. You'd be hearing the same sort of "they need to shut down the league" talk we heard last November.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I think people enjoying other sports moreso than bball is at least in some cases part of the equation. But that doesn't account for all the "the players are thugs" talk you hear and see spouted off by people about the NBA. If the transgressions real or imagined on the part of the NBA are so horrible that you can't bear to watch, then how coud many of these same individuals manage to watch the NFL religiously? I'd say pretty much nobody in the NBA has anything on the Lewises of the Baltimore. I've thought about it, and I have to say I think maybe Larry Bird was right. Maybe if the NBA had its white American superstars like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, people would have more interest in the league.


I'm not so sure. Most of my very casual basketball friends probably don't know who Steve Nash is, outside of maybe reading that he won the MVP in the sports section.

Maybe it is because he's Candadian...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Great post. I raised this point during the discussions following the Riot at Auburn Hills last year.
> 
> Imagine if the "Sex Cruise" happened with the T-Wolves, not the Vikings. You'd be hearing the same sort of "they need to shut down the league" talk we heard last November.



what if the t'wolves coach duane casey( got caught scalping tickets) i couldn't even imagine what they would say...i assure you they would want him fired.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Great post. I raised this point during the discussions following the Riot at Auburn Hills last year.
> 
> Imagine if the "Sex Cruise" happened with the T-Wolves, not the Vikings. You'd be hearing the same sort of "they need to shut down the league" talk we heard last November.


Why do you think there is prejudice against the NBA? Because there is a higher percentage of black players in the NBA than in other NFL (is that even true)?


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

I generally hate to believe the OWGS springs from anything more than fear of change and fear of getting old like any other glory days memories, but reading this thread made me think about something. 

When the two fans jumped out of the stands and attacked the Royals first base coach, and the team came out to beat on the two morons, the media stood behind them. While I do believe some sort of line exists between the baseball beating and the incident in Auburn Hills, this conversation has given me a reason to believe that line is alot fuzzier than I thought it was.

I think there is a real story here if sports journalism had anything to with journalism and a whole lot less to do with perpetuating marketing strategies.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Why do you think there is prejudice against the NBA? Because there is a higher percentage of black players in the NBA than in other NFL (is that even true)?


It's definitely a huge factor. 

The NBA is (I think) 80%+ black. The NFL has a little more black players than white (again, I'm guessing). The difference is that every year, a white American guy or two is going to be in the running for MVP in the NFL, and white players are overrepresented at the game's premier position. There's also a bunch of relatively anonymous, hard-working, jib-friendly white lineman, and then the occasional white star at a non-QB skill position. 

Another factor is that, despite romantic images conjured up by "Hoosiers" and hoops on barns and in suburban driveways, basketball is and always has been primarily a city (and "blue state") game. So that's a strike against in a lot of minds as well.

It could be that I'm overstating the issue of race. Tiger Woods's popularity, e.g., seems to undermine the point I'm making. On the other hand, if I had a buck for every time I asked a hotel bartender to switch a small, out-of-the-way TV to an NBA game, and got a "You watch that stuff?" from a fellow patron, with the level of conversation predictably and sadly going downhill from there, I'd have . . . well, only like twenty dollars. But the issue is so close to the surface for so many folks, I think it's indicative of something.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> Why do you think there is prejudice against the NBA? Because there is a higher percentage of black players in the NBA than in other NFL (is that even true)?


 it doesn't really matter what the % is in football. Football players aren't nearly as visible as basketball players.

In reality football players are really overgrown men in shoulder pads & helmets. You dont really "see" them. You really dont get a gauge on their personality. This is the exact opposite of basketball. You "see" Iverson's tatooes & braids. You see his emotion when he's on the court.

NBA players are the most recognizible/visible athlethes in this country. The biggest "stars" in football are the QBs. Every "star" in the NBA gets the QB treatment and attention.

the dress code & age limit feeds into the stupidity. It wasn't done for "the good of the game".....it was done for PR. They look like thugs & rappers so lets them put them in suits. There's a LARGE portion of this country that does not like to see young black "rich" males. The fact that they're rich without having step foot on a college campus makes it even worse....So you put in a age limit.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It could be that I'm overstating the issue of race. Tiger Woods's popularity, e.g., seems to undermine the point I'm making. On the other hand, if I had a buck for every time I asked a hotel bartender to switch a small, out-of-the-way TV to an NBA game, and got a "You watch that stuff?" from a fellow patron, with the level of conversation predictably and sadly going downhill from there, I'd have . . . well, only like twenty dollars. But the issue is so close to the surface for so many folks, I think it's indicative of something.


I'm not sure if it's racial, so much as it is cultural. The two go hand-in-hand to an extent, but there are plenty of black athletes who live moreorless a "white man's" lifestyle, for lack of a better term. Tiger Woods dresses in polo shirts and black slacks and plays a game beloved to millions of white men; it seems to convey the "white culture", despite Tiger being black. 

NBA players, general speaking, predominately display the "black culture". To some people who don't like or appreciate the culture, I suppose it can be a turnoff. Just speculation on my part, but that's my best guess as an inexperienced psychology major.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

all i know is last christmas i was banished to my sister's basement to watch the heat/lakers game.

"you want to watch those thugs? on christmas? it doesn't even get interesting till the last period. ok you can watch in the basement."

i know OW*Cisforchick*Syndrome.

my own family!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's definitely a huge factor.
> 
> The NBA is (I think) 80%+ black. The NFL has a little more black players than white (again, I'm guessing). The difference is that every year, a white American guy or two is going to be in the running for MVP in the NFL, and white players are overrepresented at the game's premier position. There's also a bunch of relatively anonymous, hard-working, jib-friendly white lineman, and then the occasional white star at a non-QB skill position.
> 
> ...


Last season the NBA was 76% black and the NFL was 69% black, so I have a pretty hard time chalking up any importance in a 7% difference. 7% isn't noticeable to most folks. That's like a single guy on a basketball team or 2 guys on a football team. That's not anything anyone really looks at and says "gee, we're really not represented".

Probably more importantly, college hoops, I'd assume, is well over 50% too. Especially if you look primarily at the bigger schools that make up the actual spectator sport.

If race has any part, it might be in that it's certainly true there aren't many good white players to cheer for. Even less if you are looking for a good white player that was a college star in the US (which is a key ingredient of fan interest, I think). Kirk Hinrich is probably pretty far up the list. Dirk obviously didn't play college ball here, and outside of hardcore fans. Steve Nash went to Santa Clara, but - who the hell knows or cares about that?

But anyway, I think there are lots of issues that absolutely dwarf any effect of race. Sometimes they're misinterpreted as race, but they aren't for obvious reasons when you really look at it.

1. The guaranteed money dynamic. This is one of those things that results in NBA players saying ridiculous stuff you'd never hear from an NFLer and getting criticized for slacking. Football players don't have the leeway to do this, and they know it. NBA players do. And while some folks point this out as a race issue, it's really a contract structure issue. You've got the same problem in MLB (with mostly white guys) and guaranteed deals and you haven't got the same problem in the NFL (with mostly black guys) but only partially guaranteed deals.

2. Basketball has had some bad luck, but it's also largely of its own making. When one of your biggest stars has a rape trial, that's a bad thing. When a game ends in a riot, that's a bad thing. When one of your biggest stars got HIV while cheating on his wife, that's a bad thing. While another of your biggest stars hurt his back and retired a couple years sooner than he needed to, that's a bad thing. When the best player ever takes a couple year timeout that's a bad thing. 

At least over a couple year time frame, changes in individuals (especially in an individual dominated sport) make a big difference. Add all of that stuff up, and yeah, it does change public perceptions. And there's nothing wrong with that either. Maybe if the NFL starts touting Aaron Rogers as if he's going to hold Brett Favre's jock, and if they have a team full of players head into the stands and start swinging at fans and if Peyton Manning gets taken to trial for rape then public perceptions of the NFL will change too.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

football players are in the news doing stuff far worse than nba players , are guarenteed contracts somehow more powerful than rae curruth killing his baby's mother because he doesn't want to pay child support.

then of course there is that ray lewis'murder trial and randy moss hitting meter maids in his car.

and the kicker is TO and all his antics.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Last season the NBA was 76% black and the NFL was 69% black, so I have a pretty hard time chalking up any importance in a 7% difference. 7% isn't noticeable to most folks. That's like a single guy on a basketball team or 2 guys on a football team. That's not anything anyone really looks at and says "gee, we're really not represented".
> 
> Probably more importantly, college hoops, I'd assume, is well over 50% too. Especially if you look primarily at the bigger schools that make up the actual spectator sport.
> 
> ...


 Ray Lewis on trail for Murder?
Jamal Lewis actually goes to jail for the summer? and then comes back and plays. Thats funny cause according to some Ron Artest shouldn't be allowed back but Lewis does and nobody cares

NFL players aren't as visible. there's like 55 players on a NFL roster...theres only 15 on a NBA squad. Being 80% black is waaaaay more noticable in basketball than it would be in football


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The guaranteed contracts enable the "sense of entitlement" millionaire behavior that infuriates the average sports fan. Only the true upper-echelon players like TO can get away with that attitude in the NFL. 

Also, the visibility is a huge issue. Old white people don't like the hip-hop look, hairstyles, tattoos, bling... etc. When you tune into a NFL game on Sunday, everyone is pretty much dressed the same. Its like the military. NBA is much different. The players are not faceless helmeted robots, but real human beings, with warts and all. When “hip-hop” style players leave a NFL game, I’m sure they are not dressed or looking very different than when NBA players leave a game. In fact, due to the uniform dress code, the NFL players may be dressed more casual than the NBA guys. But, when the game is in progress in the NFL, the league does its best to homogenize away individuality.


I also think marketing is a big reason as well. The NBA markets the players, the NFL tends to market the team and the league more, IMO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> football players are in the news doing stuff far worse than nba players , are guarenteed contracts somehow more powerful than rae curruth killing his baby's mother because he doesn't want to pay child support.
> 
> then of course there is that ray lewis'murder trial and randy moss hitting meter maids in his car.
> 
> and the kicker is TO and all his antics.


All of which generated a whole lot of bad press and head shaking from OWGs (and for that matter, plenty from OBGs too).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> But anyway, I think there are lots of issues that absolutely dwarf any effect of race. Sometimes they're misinterpreted as race, but they aren't for obvious reasons when you really look at it.
> 
> 1. The guaranteed money dynamic. This is one of those things that results in NBA players saying ridiculous stuff you'd never hear from an NFLer and getting criticized for slacking. Football players don't have the leeway to do this, and they know it. NBA players do. And while some folks point this out as a race issue, it's really a contract structure issue. You've got the same problem in MLB (with mostly white guys) and guaranteed deals and you haven't got the same problem in the NFL (with mostly black guys) but only partially guaranteed deals.


This is a good point. Money is a real sore spot for a lot of fans. 

(off topic, however, I would say that the NFL's contract system is very fan-unfriendly in one sense, which is that contracts are getting torn up and rewritten and restructured on a daily basis. You may have a guy in the NBA who loafs (although that's very, very rare, imo) or a guy who says outrageous things about his salary (anyone see Camby last night? Holy smokes), but at least the fan knows how long a guy will play for his team, and for how much. It's tough to say that in relation to the NFL.)



> 2. Basketball has had some bad luck, but it's also largely of its own making. When one of your biggest stars has a rape trial, that's a bad thing. When a game ends in a riot, that's a bad thing. When one of your biggest stars got HIV while cheating on his wife, that's a bad thing. While another of your biggest stars hurt his back and retired a couple years sooner than he needed to, that's a bad thing. When the best player ever takes a couple year timeout that's a bad thing.


But this sort of stuff has already happened /is happening in the NFL. The best defensive player of his generation plea-bargained his way out of a double homicide charge! A game in the Meadowlands was prematurely ended when a drunken mob pelted the officials and opponents' bench with iceballs, hitting a equipment manager in the head causing permanent vision loss. A star running back goes to jail for half a year for drug dealing. A jibberific star tight end goes to court for raping his babysitter. Too many players to count are accused of battering spouses, girlfriends, or complete strangers. 



> At least over a couple year time frame, changes in individuals (especially in an individual dominated sport) make a big difference. Add all of that stuff up, and yeah, it does change public perceptions. And there's nothing wrong with that either. Maybe if the NFL starts touting Aaron Rogers as if he's going to hold Brett Favre's jock, and if they have a team full of players head into the stands and start swinging at fans and if Peyton Manning gets taken to trial for rape then public perceptions of the NFL will change too.


I'm not so sure -- contrast your extreme examples with examples of what's actually happened. They're not all that far apart. America seems willing to give the NFL a free pass.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> All of which generated a whole lot of bad press and head shaking from OWGs (and for that matter, plenty from OBGs too).


true but with one big difference, as mentioned before in this thread , these bad acts were looked more as bad acts indicitive of these players.

when basketball players do things of this nature , its a more of a black(no pun intended) mark on the sport.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

tone wone said:


> Ray Lewis on trail for Murder?
> Jamal Lewis actually goes to jail for the summer? and then comes back and plays. Thats funny cause according to some Ron Artest shouldn't be allowed back but Lewis does and nobody cares


It must be because Jamal Lewis and Ray Lewis are white!



> NFL players aren't as visible. there's like 55 players on a NFL roster...theres only 15 on a NBA squad. Being 80% black is waaaaay more noticable in basketball than it would be in football


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> All of which generated a whole lot of bad press and head shaking from OWGs (and for that matter, plenty from OBGs too).


EDIT: Grinch beat me to it. That was viewed as a "Ray Lewis" problem, whereas when Marcus Camby asks for a clothing stipend, it's "what a bunch of lazy, ungrateful, stupid . . . "


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

That's a really good article. I've been around several OWGS and even some YWGS and every single one of his examples were ignorantly spewed from their mouths. 

I especially enjoy the college basktball reference. I watch college basketball. The NBA game is far superior. The offenses of college basketball are extremely simple and the location of the three point line is ridiculous.

Illinois offense during the last two games of the NCAA Tournament....

Dee (left corner 3) passes to Luther ( top of key 3), Head passes to Deron ( right corner 3), Deron passes back to Head, Head back to Dee, Dee passes back to Head, Head passes to WIlliams, WIlliams back to Head, Head back to Dee, Dee fakes drive, passes back to Luther, Powell sets pick, Head fakes drive, passes to Deron, Deron shoots 3


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

tone wone said:


> NFL players aren't as visible. there's like 55 players on a NFL roster...theres only 15 on a NBA squad. Being 80% black is waaaaay more noticable in basketball than it would be in football


Yes, NFL players are not as visible. They wear helmets.

Even baseball players wear caps. Hockey players wear helmets as well. Basketball is the only of the four major American sports where the head isn't required to be covered. So MikeDC, I think it's not so much that there are more black basketball players, but it's just that it's that much easier to see that they're black, and to see that...THEY'RE WEARING CORNROWS!!! (Hide your children).

And yes, there aren't a lot of white stars in the NBA, whereas the other three major American sports have their share of white stars.

As for Iverson, once upon a time I had a beef with him. "Practice, practice!" That whole speech was pretty stupid, wasn't it? "How am I going to make my team better by going to practice?" Well, maybe you could practice your shooting so maybe your career shooting percentage would be over 41.7%. I also didn't like Iverson's style when he came into the league. He wouldn't pass very much and would dominate the ball, but again he didn't shoot well enough to command all those shots.

Now I love Allen. He's committed himself to practice. He's much more skilled at distributing the ball. He's still an extremely dynamic scorer. Nobody works harder on the court. And I've almost always found Iverson to be an extremely insightful interview. You usually hear emotion and intellect from Iverson on the podium. I always get the sense that he really think about his answers before he says things, which is part of the reason I found his practice tirade so funny. 

I am happy to have AI be one of the faces of our league.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

As people have hinted at, the devide between the game and the life is blurred more in basketball because the players don't wear any kind of headgear. I think it is much easier in football to seperate the player from the person because of the equipment. 

I also might add that the power the NBA player has in relation to his team is far greater than in football and therefore the player and his personality are of greater visability than in football.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, the second point - regarding the NBA guys doing things that were worse than NFL guys is probably not a very good one as stated.

But here's what I was trying to get at. The NBA has definitely been selling the players. And there's a lot fewer of them, both by virtue of the nature of the game and the way its marketed.

I mean yeah, Kobe Bryant vs. Ray Lewis, in terms of actual crime (accused of) is one thing, but what place did Kobe have as "the face" of the NBA vs. the place Lewis had as "the face" of the NFL?

What I'm trying to get at is that the absolute nature of the crime is at least somewhat less important than a guys' place within the sport. Ray Lewis might have been the defensive MVP, but I doubt he was in the top 20 of recognizable NFL stars. Kobe was probably in the top 3 of NBA stars.

Mark Chmura, Rae Carruth, Leonard Little... sure, there are plenty of guys that have committed bigtime crimes in the NFL - but they aren't exactly Magic Johnson in terms of their place in the food chain.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> It was all I could do from taking a swing at the guy. If he wasn't treating me at the time, I would have.


WWAID?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> OK, the second point - regarding the NBA guys doing things that were worse than NFL guys is probably not a very good one as stated.
> 
> But here's what I was trying to get at. The NBA has definitely been selling the players. And there's a lot fewer of them, both by virtue of the nature of the game and the way its marketed.
> 
> ...


where is Terrell Owens on the food chain?

but i see your point, i just think there are more racial things involved than you want to admit.

if Kobe had been accused of raping a black, hispanic asian or indian woman , it would not have in my opinion come close to that kind of media attention.

much like a certain, knife swinging, wife beating, ford white bronco riding ex-buffalo bill in a murder trial 10 years ago.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yes, NFL players are not as visible. They wear helmets.
> 
> Even baseball players wear caps. Hockey players wear helmets as well. Basketball is the only of the four major American sports where the head isn't required to be covered. So MikeDC, I think it's not so much that there are more black basketball players, but it's just that it's that much easier to see that they're black, and to see that...THEY'RE WEARING CORNROWS!!! (Hide your children).


this is the reason why there's a dress code. 

Other than having your jersey's tucked in, you cant regulate what the players wear and look like on the court..but by making all the players wear a blazer when they're on the bench rather than having them in t-shirts, jersey or a fitted with a big chain you takes away their individuality.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> This is a good point. Money is a real sore spot for a lot of fans.
> 
> (off topic, however, I would say that the NFL's contract system is very fan-unfriendly in one sense, which is that contracts are getting torn up and rewritten and restructured on a daily basis. You may have a guy in the NBA who loafs (although that's very, very rare, imo) or a guy who says outrageous things about his salary (anyone see Camby last night? Holy smokes), but at least the fan knows how long a guy will play for his team, and for how much. It's tough to say that in relation to the NFL.)


I agree that the NFL's system makes it hard to keep a rooting interest in players - too much turnover. Somewhere in the middle would be good. But in regard to knowing how long a guy has, that's little comfort when he's getting paid what he's getting paid. I have little doubt ERobbery would have been out on his *** a year or two sooner under the NFL scheme, for example. And that would have been a good thing.



> But this sort of stuff has already happened /is happening in the NFL. The best defensive player of his generation plea-bargained his way out of a double homicide charge!


But I don't think Ray Lewis was anything close to the "big name" that Kobe Bryant was.

I wonder, for example, how many Ray Lewis jerseys vs. Kobe Bryant jerseys there were floating around out there before each of their incidents? I'd wager there were more Kobe jerseys even with football being the more popular sport in general.



> A game in the Meadowlands was prematurely ended when a drunken mob pelted the officials and opponents' bench with iceballs, hitting a equipment manager in the head causing permanent vision loss.


Which is pretty much exactly what happened in the Pacers/Pistons brawl, except the NFL players didn't clear the bench and head into the stands to exact revenge.

The fans don't reflect on the sport, the sportsmen do. That's probably not fair, but saying the fans of a sport are bad is nothing like saying the players are.



> A star running back goes to jail for half a year for drug dealing. A jibberific star tight end goes to court for raping his babysitter. Too many players to count are accused of battering spouses, girlfriends, or complete strangers.


Sure- but most of them aren't anybody anyone knows about. Similarly, there are plenty of these "petty" incidents that NBA players don't have following them. Outside of hardcore nuts like me, not too many people know about Ben Gordon's girl smacking or Eddy Curry's post-enrichment dumping of his high-school sweetheart or Marcus Fizer's proclivity to carry guns or Scott Skiles history of cocaine abuse or Chris Duhon's being an underage boozer.

Point is, while you're saying lots of NFLers get free passes, lots of NBAers do too. It's certainly not like basketball players always get nailed and football players always get a free pass.




> I'm not so sure -- contrast your extreme examples with examples of what's actually happened. They're not all that far apart. America seems willing to give the NFL a free pass.


Perhaps, but it seems mostly explainable to me in terms of contract structure and the general importance of guys within the sport. Maybe not 100% of it, but I think you have to try pretty hard to say Ray Lewis or Rae Carruth were, individually, anything close to the kind of stars that Kobe Bryant is.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

tone wone said:


> this is the reason why there's a dress code.
> 
> Other than having your jersey's tucked in, you cant regulate what the players wear and look like on the court..but by making all the players wear a blazer when they're on the bench rather than having them in t-shirts, jersey or a fitted with a big chain you takes away their individuality.


If your individuality is dependent on your attire I suggest that you don't have much.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> If your individuality is dependent on your attire I suggest that you don't have much.


individuality is expressed in the clothes.

the man makes the clothes , not the other way around sort of thing.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."

~ Mark Twain


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Sure- but most of them aren't anybody anyone knows about. Similarly, there are plenty of these "petty" incidents that NBA players don't have following them. Outside of hardcore nuts like me, not too many people know about Ben Gordon's girl smacking or Eddy Curry's post-enrichment dumping of his high-school sweetheart or Marcus Fizer's proclivity to carry guns or Scott Skiles history of cocaine abuse or Chris Duhon's being an underage boozer.
> 
> Point is, while you're saying lots of NFLers get free passes, lots of NBAers do too. It's certainly not like basketball players always get nailed and football players always get a free pass.


but when something does get out....

only in basketball does the entire league and all its players get nailed by the media not just those involved.

The only thing simular is Baseball and steriods. The general thinking is that all baseball player were/are juiced up. Now, in basketball all the players are thugs, weedheads, ungrateful, overpaid, lazy, thugs once again & and lack fundamentals.

Perfect example: 04 in Athens. A team with Tim Duncan, Carlos Boozer, Emeka Okafor, Dwayne Wade, LEbron, Shawn Marion, Richard Jefferson got call those things over and over again


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> If your individuality is dependent on your attire I suggest that you don't have much.


 I only said "individuality" cause I didn't want to say "looking like a young black male". 

Cause thats basically what "they" dont want to see.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Tiger Woods isn't black. He said he's canablasian. Hopefully, he doesn't smack his woman around, because then he'll find out how black he really is.

As for this topic, no old people period (over 40) or young people (under 30) are going to tell me they don't like the NBA. If they don't like it, get the **** out of the room, because I'm watching it. 

Simple as that. Take a hike.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> individuality is expressed in the clothes.


How is consciously wearing the same style as millions of people an expression of individuality?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm not buying into the racial argument of basketball's fan support decline (else why wouldn't hockey be the favorite sport of the OWM), although I am sure it is a factor to some extent.

My perception is that the high point of the NBA in terms of fan viewership was in the 80s and up through the mid 90s until Jordan retired. So the question that need be asked is, what changed?

Looking back at the 80s at http://basketballreference.com

Year / # Teams averaging 100+ppg / Teams
1980: 22/22
1981: 22/23
1982: 23/23
1983: 20/23
1984: 23/23
1985: 23/23
1986: 22/23
1987: 23/23
1988: 22/23
1989: 24/25

Looking at 00s

Year / # Teams averaging 100+ppg / Teams
2000: 7/29
2001: 4/29
2002: 4/29
2003: 4/29
2004: 2/29
2005: 6/30

Why was watching the Phoenix Suns play last year a lot of fun to watch for many of us? It reminded us of the fastbreak style when basketball was at its peak. PHO averaging 110 ppg would probably only rate as "above average" back in the 80s (assuming the same offensive production).

The knowledgeable fan can appreciate defense. I know I like watching a good pitching duel, just about any Bears game, and the Bulls of the past two seasons. However, knowledgeable fans aren't the only people that purchase the tickets. A casual NBA fan probably will not be entertained by a low scoring game, much like a casual football fan wouldn't like to see 20 punts in a game, or a 1-0 victory in baseball.

Basketball is even more under the radar than baseball or football. The casual fan in baseball can decipher when a pitcher is pitching well. The casual football fan can appreciate a hard hit or sack of the quarterback. However, I very much doubt that the casual fan can appreciate a good series of rotations on defense forcing the offense to take a lower-percentage shot. When attending games with my friends, I hear comments like, "Wow. Both teams really can't shoot tonight." To a casual fan, this is boring.

As far as the OWGS, the game is not appealing to them now as it was before. As a result, the NBA markets itself towards the active audience. Now the OWGS can point to the hip hop style that is the NBA as the reason they don't like the sport. Since the game has become much more of a defensive struggle night in and night out, I contest they simply aren't being very entertained.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> How is consciously wearing the same style as millions of people an expression of individuality?


 but being told what to wear is "individuality"


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

tone wone said:


> but being told what to wear is "individuality"


No. But atleast at least you can blame it on something outside of your control.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> where is Terrell Owens on the food chain?
> 
> but i see your point, i just think there are more racial things involved than you want to admit.


Maybe, but I think Terrell Owens is a pretty good example. And the disgust at him is rising to levels typically heard about the NBA. But here are two absolutely impossible to ignore points in support of my argument.

1. TO is getting nailed largely for criticizing one black guy (Donovan McNabb) and fighting with another (Hugh Douglas).

2. The punishment of TO for his nuttiness is rapid and severe. He's not gonna play again this year and he's out a cool million bucks or so.

This last point is especially important because it really affects how much people complain- especially about the goofy "cultural" or "wrong way" infractions that bother people about the NBA (as opposed to murder or rape cases, where fans may be turned off, but the courts actually do the punishing). People complain in the NBA because there appear to be little to no reprocussions to a guy saying incredibly boneheaded things a la AI or Marcus Camby. They've got long-term guaranteed deals, so what can you do. In the NFL, if you step too far over the line, you're out on your *** and a lot poorer for it.

Right or wrong, people feel the system is more just if they see punishment and retribution. The perception that the inmates are running the asylum and no one can do anything about it pervades these issues in the NBA.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."
> 
> ~ Mark Twain


LOL


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> How is consciously wearing the same style as millions of people an expression of individuality?



not everyone wears the same exact thing, in fact outside of throwbacks i rarely see the same thing on different players.

some wear do rags some dont , some wear earrings , chains ,baggy pants, throwbacks fur coats, button down shirts or Tshirts a lot of differnt things are considered a style , but most who dont subscribe to it dont see it that way.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

tone wone said:


> but when something does get out....
> 
> only in basketball does the entire league and all its players get nailed by the media not just those involved.
> 
> The only thing simular is Baseball and steriods. The general thinking is that all baseball player were/are juiced up.


OK, good point. But that hardly speaks to racism. It's saying a similarity exists in the way players are portrayed in a largely white/hispanic sport where the players mostly fairly anonymous and are overpaid and have guaranteed deals and a largely black sport where the players are mostly anonymous and have overpaid guaranteed deals.

There are lots of common elements. Disproportionately high profile guys - Mark McGuire is a better comparison to Kobe than Ray Lewis is, by virture of the fact that he was much more the face of his sport than, say, Lewis. Disproportionately large guaranteed contracts. 

And, from my last post, limited ability to punish. If there's anything more ineffectual than taking on the an NBA player's right to say something stupid halfway through a max contract, it's MLB's inability to effectively punish or get rid of anyone.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> not everyone wears the same exact thing, in fact outside of throwbacks i rarely see the same thing on different players.
> 
> some wear do rags some dont , some wear earrings , chains ,baggy pants, throwbacks fur coats, button down shirts or Tshirts a lot of differnt things are considered a style , but most who dont subscribe to it dont see it that way.


I understand and I am not picking on one particular style. However, you have to admit that rarely do people dress outside of a particular style. For example, one rarely sees a person wearing a sarong on the bottom with a sports jacket and a Chinese military hat and cowboy boots. People usually dress withen an established style which they generally do not create. Therefore, to act as though a dress code is infringing on ones individuality seems a bit shallow.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I understand and I am not picking on one particular style. However, you have to admit that rarely do people dress outside of a particular style. For example, one rarely sees a person wearing a sarong on the bottom with a dress up jacket and a Chinese military hat and cowboy boots. People usually dress withen an established style which they generally do not create. Therefore, to act as though a dress code is infringing on ones individuality seems a bit shallow.



its a league of 30 and under african americans for the most part...and they dress in the manner that most their age dress in , 

i am sure you dress in whatever is normal for whatever for your age and ethnic group outside of whatever your occupation...but i am guessing no one has your exact wardrobe and that you wear things that only you see yourself in.

or are your clothing tastes taken directly from another person?

the dress code infringes on that because it mandates certain clothing outside of their workplace for reasons i disagree with.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

Are braids more offensive to the average fan than Ben Wallace's hair unbraided? I would consider his hair an NBA event all by itself more than a style. I have tattoos, and I've alway lived in diverse places except for a short stint in New Zealand, so maybe I just need an explanation of why Allen Iverson has a bad image. I see him with a baby in his arms often celebrating with family. That's a good image. Are braids and tattoos really that bad?

What about Scot Pollard's many hair shennanigans not to mention the fingernail painting? To be fair he seems to have toned it down a bit way before the rules, but would they have forced him to be less strange in any way? Not really.

There's no point in my post I've just noticed. I think I really don't get the image issue. What is the ideal? Business casual is the term, right. What is specifically forbidden? Chains? Not even one? Are the rules specific or open to interpretation? Thus allowing for individuality. Or is only Pollardlike individuality acceptable? I daresay the OWGs and OWCs sure commented about him in Sacramento. Or is he exempt on a "not much face time" exception? 

Radmanovich dresses pretty strange sometimes, too.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

(OT POST: it was just not necessary to start a whole new thread for this)

it's not my intention to take the thread off track...but speaking of clothes making the man AND bogeymen, here is a story that combines both of those concepts. brilliantly. 



courtesy of the guys at deadspin...Mr. Rodman attends an afternoon book signing 

it's a good look for him.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

What about the image of Ali G in the NBA's own marketing campaign?

Man am I confused. Good job marketing guys.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> My perception is that the high point of the NBA in terms of fan viewership was in the 80s and up through the mid 90s until Jordan retired.


Interesting thread, I too have been on the recieving end of a few OWGS's in my day. This quote by Rhyder kind of steers my fairly simple theory, that these guys are just living in the past. Nostalgia. They fell in love with the era, the teams, the players, and the style of play that was popular back then, but not the entire game of basketball. So when the players and teams were gone, they assumed basketball took a dive, but in reality, it just progressed. I mean, the Pistons and Spurs move the ball about as well as you can ask for, and they were in the finals. Maybe another factor is the defenses. Basketball used to be a much prettier game, because defenses weren't nearly as strong, so offenses could run really smoothly and beautifully. Now, we've got amazingly lengthy and athletic guys, and much better defensive schemes, plus reviewing film of a teams offense is a lot more common. So the defense caught up with the offense, making it a much more physical and competitive game, but not as beautiful offensively.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Interesting thread, I too have been on the recieving end of a few OWGS's in my day. This quote by Rhyder kind of steers my fairly simple theory, that these guys are just living in the past. Nostalgia. They fell in love with the era, the teams, the players, and the style of play that was popular back then, but not the entire game of basketball. So when the players and teams were gone, they assumed basketball took a dive, but in reality, it just progressed. I mean, the Pistons and Spurs move the ball about as well as you can ask for, and they were in the finals. Maybe another factor is the defenses. Basketball used to be a much prettier game, because defenses weren't nearly as strong, so offenses could run really smoothly and beautifully. Now, we've got amazingly lengthy and athletic guys, and much better defensive schemes, plus reviewing film of a teams offense is a lot more common. So the defense caught up with the offense, making it a much more physical and competitive game, but not as beautiful offensively.



i kind of agree , also people tend to romanticize that the lakers and celtics were indicitive of all teams then when its just not true, there was cream at the top and some teams that were crap and some in between...just like now.

the game has changed and maybe guys cant hit 18 fters like they used to , but they can defend much better, its a wash really, if anything the players are better now because they have more players to choose from in different countries who play it as much as we do.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Interesting thread, I too have been on the recieving end of a few OWGS's in my day. This quote by Rhyder kind of steers my fairly simple theory, that these guys are just living in the past. Nostalgia. They fell in love with the era, the teams, the players, and the style of play that was popular back then, but not the entire game of basketball. So when the players and teams were gone, they assumed basketball took a dive, but in reality, it just progressed. I mean, the Pistons and Spurs move the ball about as well as you can ask for, and they were in the finals. Maybe another factor is the defenses. Basketball used to be a much prettier game, because defenses weren't nearly as strong, so offenses could run really smoothly and beautifully. Now, we've got amazingly lengthy and athletic guys, and much better defensive schemes, plus reviewing film of a teams offense is a lot more common. So the defense caught up with the offense, making it a much more physical and competitive game, but not as beautiful offensively.


In Jordans hayday some of the best teams were the Pistons and the Knicks who played about as physical as anyone ever has played.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I think to focus on tatoos and baskwards baseball caps is looking at the problem way too narrowly.

I think all of the following have contributed to the lack of interest in the NBA:

*1. Change In Style of the Game* I think basketball has undergone more change in the style of play since, say, the mid-60's than have the 3 other major sports. So white guys who maybe played HS or even college ball in the 50's, 60's, and 70's don't relate as well to the style of ball played today. Baseball and football have not had this degree of change in their games. I think there are too many coaches these days who are control freaks to the degree that they take too much control of the game away from the players. Also see point #4 below.

*2. Guaranteed Contracts* Football doesn't have them, and I think this goes a long way towards weeding out the bad apples and players who don't want to play week in and week out. You don't produce, you're in danger of losing your job, period. Baseball has them, and I think as a result suffers some of the negativity from fans on this front as well. Fans don't like to watch players who aren't earning their millions.

*3. Expansion* I think the NBA may have over-expanded during the late 80's and early 90's, watering down the talent pool just a bit too much and too quickly. They added 6 teams over a span of about 6 years (from 1988 to 1995), if I'm not mistaken.

*4. Rules Changes* This relates back to point #1 a bit. I think people underestimate the impact of rules changes on the game. In the case of the NBA, as an example, the 3-point shot has changed the game dramatically. I may be biased on this point because of my personal views on the matter, but I don't think fans find it enjoyable to watch players run up and down the court launching as many threes as are being attempted (and missed) these days. The 3-point shot has become so popular that it has dictated-- too heavily IMO-- the design of offenses. It is no longer the objective of offense to work the ball close to the basket, but rather to spot up guys at the arc for an open three.

*5. Unskilled / Too Young Players* I think this has been a big problem. There have been (and are still) simply too many players in the league that are just not ready to play NBA ball. Bulls fans should know this all too well having had to sit through 2-3 full seasons of Chandler/Curry when neither one was truly ready for the NBA. There are many basketball fans who appreciate watching basketball skill as opposed to potential.

*6. Star Treatment* I think the concept of marketing stars was successful for the league when it had the big 3 of Bird, Magic, and Jordan. But I think more fans would rather there be a level playing field when it comes to enforcement of the rules. I hear this time and again from fans of the game. I know it was mentioned the strike zone in baseball-- but I still think this is much more widespread problem in the NBA than in MLB.

*7. Inconsistent Officiating* This is related to the previous point, but refers more to the disparity between how things are called, for example, in the lane vs. out on the perimeter. What is the sense in calling touch fouls on the perimeter when the bigs in the lane are banging like sumo wrestlers? Mark Cuban has been a champion of this issue, and I think he is right on (although I don't agree with all his specific proposals to rectify the situation).

*8. Boring Isolation Offense* This has improved in recent years (with the elimination of much of the illegal defense rules), but it was not too long ago where it was very common for some games to devolve into games of 1-on-1 or 2-on-2 every time down the court.

This is more or less off-the-cuff and I may have missed some points or not explained some well enough. But I thought I'd toss it out there and see what the reaction is.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Another angle: 

1. Basketball is truly the only real "American" sport--the other two are cheap imitation knock-offs of the English sports of Rugby and Cricket/Rounders. This is true historically. Abner Doubleday's story is a myth, but Dr. Naismith's tale is a fact. Nonetheless, the NBA has historiclly, in terms of popularity, lagged behind the other two, for lack of better words, "non-American based American" sports. 

2. Paradoxically, the NBA, an expression of something that is genuinely American (like Jazz) is also a popular global phenomenon, with millions of fans across all continents. I'm trying to imagine Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, John Elway, Steve Young and Dan Marino travelling across the world, going from country-to-country, continent-to-continent--no one will mob them for autographs, no one will bother their travels, non one except for the odd American/Canadian) will know who they even are (sort of like Zidane/Ronanldino/Thierry Henry traveling through the US). However, imagine, if you will, Michael Jordan, Magic, Larry, Shaq, Kobe, AI, travelling abroad. Think they would be hit up for autographs? You betcha!

3. When the NBA, representing the real "American" sport, blew up in popularity in the Jordan era, perhaps it didn't sit too well with the media, perhaps they felt the NBA was encroaching on the popularity of their two favorite sports, baseball and American Rules Football. When do you see sportswriters acting philosophical about basketball like they do about the "Great American Pastime" ...

4. The NBA represents, in the eyes of the media, something less than the other two big sports--despite the fact that, partipation-wise, basketball is the most popular sport in the USA--by far. In the post Jordan-era, they're more than happy to knock it down to size.

As for myself, it's been a good long time since I paid attention to the Bears, Cubs, and Sox. Those are teams and sports that I outgrew as an adult. But since the dawn of the Ed Badger era (Wilbur Holland was in MJ's position at the time, whatever happened to him? Wonder if he gets as habitally tanked as his backcourt mate, Stormin' Normin' does?) to the present time, I've never stopped following the Bulls! My only gripe: Why the hell did they get rid of Jim Durham? The new radio guy's just plain aweful!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> I think to focus on tatoos and baskwards baseball caps is looking at the problem way too narrowly.
> 
> I think all of the following have contributed to the lack of interest in the NBA:
> 
> ...


Nice post - please take my response as a constructive deconstruction 

On the one hand, I think it's on the money in describing some of the basketball problems facing the NBA, but I'm not sure it gets at why the NBA is the cultural whipping boy when compared to the NFL. Because think about it, a lot of these things are true in the NFL too. Compare the NFL to, say, 20 years ago, and many of the same arguments could be made.

1. It seems like a small change, but I think if you were to look closely at the sophistication of the average football game now vs. when the Bears won the Superbowl 20 years ago, you'd be shocked. You're closing in on 20% bigger rosters and you substitute players like crazy compared to back then. Defense and offense are both run at a ridiculously complex level compared to any high school and even the majority of colleges.

2. There aren't guaranteed contracts, but you've got a lot more money and it's increasingly leading people to do and say stupid things (TO for example). As Scott May alluded to, guys who play their whole career with a single team are a rarity these days.

3. Expansion, no doubt. Can you tell me who's playing QB for the 49ers?

4. Rules changes have made holding easier and pass defense harder.

5. OK, don't think that applies to the NFL - in anything there are more guys coming from colleges playing pro-style offenses.

6. Don't see that one either.

7. Instant replay, then no instant replay. Then instant replay again. The tuck rule... holding calls... motion calls. Plenty of room to criticize here.

8. Agree mostly with this one.

Point is, probably 5 of 8 of these problems would be applicable to the NFL if a purist really wanted to complain about them. I think the best of the bunch is #8. Take away the star power and a grind it out on defense and isolate on offense game isn't a whole lot of fun to watch.

To me, that also explains why those criticisms don't matter to the NFL. The game can be complex beyond simple recognition, watered down by expansion, subject to poor officiating and money grubbing players but if the game is still exciting to watch and your team has a legitimate shot, then that's exciting.

It's exciting because most fans aren't purists or experts. They like a system where their team might win, and they like a system that makes for close games.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Perhaps I'm not in a position to really say anything, but I feel the OWGS have fallen considerably the last few years. Sure, I will hear how the game is played the wrong way and how basketball needs to return to the fundamentals, but guess what? Our recent Olympic failings says it probably does. And furthermore, basketball is hardly the only sport to be receiving this type of criticism. Week after week I hear about how NFLers are more concerned about making the big hit than wrapping up and tackling. And let's not forget Ryno's HOF induction speech and the praise offered up for "small ball". 

I'm not saying I agree with the OWGS, but I am saying that overly emphsizing race is a cop out. There are numerous other factors at play, some of which are accurate. Perhaps the OWGS should be renamed the Old Purist Sermon?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

This has been a very interesting discussion.

There is one thing to keep in mind - the NBA has historically struggled to find a broad audience. Football and Baseball were well established in the late 40s and 50s although football had some struggles in areas, but basketball was trying to find a niche (and the players were all white in the 40s) at the same time. In the 40s, players drove to games and the teams were in small towns - it was the Fort Wayne Pacers, The Rochester Royals, etc.

So maybe the question should be is why hasn't professional basketball established itself the same way as football and baseball? Hockey has some of the same problems (and lots of people have thought those white boys playing on ice are thugs, but that's a whole nother thing), and some of it lies in television coverage. Football and baseball had an early lock on wide spread coverage.

Magic and Bird saved the NBA in the early 80s. Jordan did it again. And that's part of the problem. People follow football and baseball based on the teams, and people follow the teams that they have geographical ties to. A lot of people just follow basketball individuals. 

When ABC started carrying the games back in the 60s and 70s, they had regional coverage. You saw teams in your area. Now it's hard to see teams in your area. That doesn't help anything.

And ABCs coverage with Keith Jackson and Bill Russell was so much better than anything we have now. Or maybe that's my memory playing tricks because I was a kid then.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/jack_mccallum/11/10/complaints/index.html
> 
> I've gotten the OWGS in airports and hotel/sports bars all over the country, although often times it's not delivered as, uh, sensitively as McCallum describes.
> 
> Which is too bad. I think the NBA is the strongest professional league in the country, and by a pretty wide margin.


 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Perhaps I'm not in a position to really say anything, but I feel the OWGS have fallen considerably the last few years. Sure, I will hear how the game is played the wrong way and how basketball needs to return to the fundamentals, but guess what? Our recent Olympic failings says it probably does. And furthermore, basketball is hardly the only sport to be receiving this type of criticism. Week after week I hear about how NFLers are more concerned about making the big hit than wrapping up and tackling. And let's not forget Ryno's HOF induction speech and the praise offered up for "small ball".
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with the OWGS, but I am saying that overly emphsizing race is a cop out. There are numerous other factors at play, some of which are accurate. Perhaps the OWGS should be renamed the Old Purist Sermon?


In my personal experience, when I've gotten the (O)WGS from complete strangers, it has frequently degenerated into a coded or explicit racist rant. I'm lucky enough to have a large group of friends who also happen to be huge NBA fans, some of whom work directly or indirectly in the sport. Many of them have experienced the same thing. That's why McCallum's concept really resonated with me. 

I don't see the US's struggles in international events as being any kind of barometer for the caliber of play in the NBA. Basketball is spreading like wildfire everywhere, and the international players are head and shoulders above where they used to be. Additionally, I feel the international game is a significantly different one -- spacing, shooting, officiating, etc. -- and the US has not honored that difference or taken it in account when assembling rosters and allowing for practice time.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

narek said:


> This has been a very interesting discussion.
> 
> There is one thing to keep in mind - the NBA has historically struggled to find a broad audience. Football and Baseball were well established in the late 40s and 50s although football had some struggles in areas, but basketball was trying to find a niche (and the players were all white in the 40s) at the same time. In the 40s, players drove to games and the teams were in small towns - it was the Fort Wayne Pacers, The Rochester Royals, etc.
> 
> ...


 the funny thing is basketball has grown soooooo mcuh internationally. Its the 3rd most popular sport in the US(behind #1 football #2 baseball) but its the 2nd most popular sport in the Word behind soccer.

Its so weird cause it did this in basically 10 years.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> I think to focus on tatoos and baskwards baseball caps is looking at the problem way too narrowly.
> 
> I think all of the following have contributed to the lack of interest in the NBA:
> 
> ...


Good thoughts, Kneepad. If you've never read "Falling from Grace," by the incomparable Terry Pluto, you should. You've echoed many of his arguments here.

Some counterpoints:

-- Many of the changes in the style of play has to do with how athletic the players are. This is not a knock on the players of yesteryear -- they didn't have access to the technology, nutrition, and training that today's guys do. But today's player is able to cover a lot more ground a lot more quickly than the guys did in the 50s and 60s. 

-- While I understand the consequences of the 3-point shot, it has to be said that the basis of its existence is the fact that fans love it. At the time of the ABA/NBA merger, the NBA was a listless, moribund league. Terry Pluto, in fact, has theorized that had it had access to more capital and better overall management, the ABA would have outlasted the NBA. The NBA saw how wildly popular the three was in the ABA, and voted to incorporate it a couple years later. 

-- Officiating. I think the NBA has made lots of mistakes over the years, and that there are lots of things they could stand to do better, but I think the aggressive way they've attempted to reform officiating is downright impressive. The refs are the most studied and drilled and tracked in professional sports. I know a caste system exists (which, remember, also has something to do with the fans -- no one wants to shell out $XXX to see the best players sit on the pine), but I'm not sure that it's affecting the integrity of games. I mean, can you imagine a run of games in the playoffs being officiated as poorly as what we saw in baseball this year? I can't.

I'm of the mind that the league gets stronger and stronger every year, almost without exception. Thanks to ESPN Classic, I can see games from the bygone eras -- purist classics like the 70 or 77 Finals, e.g. -- and recognize the greatness in those players while also seeing how the game's gotten better. I know the game's not for everyone, but I wish some of the naysayers would give it another look -- especially the OWG who claim to have loved the game before.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Good thoughts, Kneepad. If you've never read "Falling from Grace," by the incomparable Terry Pluto, you should. You've echoed many of his arguments here.


I have not read Falling From Grace, but I have enjoyed other Pluto works and will try to pick it up.



> Many of the changes in the style of play has to do with how athletic the players are. This is not a knock on the players of yesteryear -- they didn't have access to the technology, nutrition, and training that today's guys do. But today's player is able to cover a lot more ground a lot more quickly than the guys did in the 50s and 60s.


I don't disagree with this. I'm just attempting to point out the fact that the game is quite a bit different from the game old white guys may have played back in their day. They don't relate as well to it as well as old footballers or baseballers can still relate to their games.



> While I understand the consequences of the 3-point shot, it has to be said that the basis of its existence is the fact that fans love it. At the time of the ABA/NBA merger, the NBA was a listless, moribund league. Terry Pluto, in fact, has theorized that had it had access to more capital and better overall management, the ABA would have outlasted the NBA. The NBA saw how wildly popular the three was in the ABA, and voted to incorporate it a couple years later.


Some fans may love it. A lot of fans may _think_ they love it, but do they really understand the consequences, the trade-offs? And by now there is a whole generation of fans that has grown up that knows nothing of the game without the 3-point shot.

I think saying the 3-point shot was "wildly popular" in the old ABA is a bit of revisionist history. The fact is, in the final year of the ABA, the 3-point shot accounted for 4% of all field goal attemps. In the 04-05 NBA season, 3-point shots accounted for nearly 20% of all field goal attempts.

I have no problem with the 3-point shot per se. I do have a problem with it being 20% of all attempted shots.



> Officiating. I think the NBA has made lots of mistakes over the years, and that there are lots of things they could stand to do better, but I think the aggressive way they've attempted to reform officiating is downright impressive. The refs are the most studied and drilled and tracked in professional sports. I know a caste system exists (which, remember, also has something to do with the fans -- no one wants to shell out $XXX to see the best players sit on the pine), but I'm not sure that it's affecting the integrity of games. I mean, can you imagine a run of games in the playoffs being officiated as poorly as what we saw in baseball this year? I can't.


In my opinion, NBA officiating is by far the worst of the 3 major sports I follow, and I can't imagine hockey being worse. Yes, the umpiring in the most recent baseball playoffs was atrocious, but only because of legitimate human error, not officials attempting to impact the game. Imagine if A-Rod were intentially called safe at first even if he was a half-step late reaching the bag, just because he's A-Rod and the league wants fans to see him get on base.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Good stuff, kneepad.

Here's my old white man's POV on sports, in general.

Every sport, except baseball, has gotten steadily worse as the years progress.

Basketball: the court is now too small and the basket is too low. The game has become one where teams don't penetrate much and simply pass around the 3pt line looking for an open look. The one new guy who came along and plays like an old-schooler (Wade) is considered one of the most exciting players in the NBA now.

Hockey: Gretzky blew open all the record books. Nobody dominated any sport like he did, except maybe Babe Ruth. Radically changed how we all see the game. It's become a game where the puck stays mostly between the blue lines because of some "new" defensive scheme. It's boring. And I loved the sport growing up (Mikitia, Martin, Hull, Esposito!).

Football: Sorry, but the 49ers ruined it for me. Pass the ball 5 yards, have a receiver pick another receiver's man (which is illegal but not called), and watch a 95 yard run after the catch. Wow, look at the QB ratings. On a more serious note, the game has become one of desparation - once a team is down by 10 or 14 points, the rest of the game is watching one team try to pass against 7 cornerbacks. A broken play is huge (e.g. a punt return or kickoff return or interception return for TD).

Baseball is by far our oldest organized sport. It still is hard to hit a 95MPH fastball. The bases are still the optimal distance for making stealing or throwing out runners the perfect challenge. A pitcher's duel is still as exciting as a big scoring game. The steroids abuse has hurt the players' images, but not the game. It seems it can survive pretty much any tinkering they do.

Do you see any correlation between the increase in 3pt attempts and the institution of the legal zone defense?


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Anybody remember what the reaction was in 2000 when 16 Dodgers players decided to fight with fans in Wrigley when a fan grabbed a player's hat?


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

tone wone said:


> this is the reason why there's a dress code.
> 
> Other than having your jersey's tucked in, you cant regulate what the players wear and look like on the court..but by making all the players wear a blazer when they're on the bench rather than having them in t-shirts, jersey or a fitted with a big chain you takes away their individuality.


If that's the case then, why is it that sport commentators at games giving interviews don't wear t-shirts and jerseys, and casual clothes? Is it because the broadcasting company they work for is trying to take away their individuality? I think the NBA's motivation is similar to the broadcasting company's motivation, which in my mind is valid.

I think you can still dress in a respectable and fashionable way which shows personality. Just bling out your cufflinks or something.


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> **snip**
> 
> In my opinion, NBA officiating is by far the worst of the 3 major sports I follow, and I can't imagine hockey being worse. Yes, the umpiring in the most recent baseball playoffs was atrocious, but only because of legitimate human error, not officials attempting to impact the game. *Imagine if A-Rod were intentially called safe at first even if he was a half-step late reaching the bag, just because he's A-Rod and the league wants fans to see him get on base.*


that puts it into perspective beautifully. it really pisses me off that there's "star" treatment in the nba, even though we got the better end of it for many a year with MJ on our team.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> But I don't think Ray Lewis was anything close to the "big name" that Kobe Bryant was.
> 
> I wonder, for example, how many Ray Lewis jerseys vs. Kobe Bryant jerseys there were floating around out there before each of their incidents? I'd wager there were more Kobe jerseys even with football being the more popular sport in general.


I agree. I mean, for god sakes, Kobe sold our kids Sprite. Everybody likes Sprite. Sprite is American. Sprite.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

settinUpShop said:


> that puts it into perspective beautifully. it really pisses me off that there's "star" treatment in the nba, even though we got the better end of it for many a year with MJ on our team.



i find it funny people think basketball is the only sport with favortism in it.

i've seen greg maddux get strikes that even stevie wonder would have called balls.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I agree. I mean, for god sakes, Kobe sold our kids Sprite. Everybody likes Sprite. Sprite is American. Sprite.


Actually, America is deeply divided over lemon-lime soda. I'm pissed I can't find it, but I once saw a map not unlike the famous Red/Blue political dichotomy that purported to show consumption of Sprite and Seven-Up.

But yeah... I dunno if the sarcasm is warranted. Besides Sprite Kobe did plenty of shilling for Micky D's, which damn sure is about as mom and apple pie as you can get


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Actually, America is deeply divided over lemon-lime soda. I'm pissed I can't find it, but I once saw a map not unlike the famous Red/Blue political dichotomy that purported to show consumption of Sprite and Seven-Up.
> 
> But yeah... I dunno if the sarcasm is warranted. Besides Sprite Kobe did plenty of shilling for Micky D's, which damn sure is about as mom and apple pie as you can get


 Yeah, Mike. I am in agreement with you, even though I was poking a little fun. We should have FJ think up a new word for sarcasm that you actually mean.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i find it funny people think basketball is the only sport with favortism in it.
> 
> i've seen greg maddux get strikes that even stevie wonder would have called balls.


Any examples besides this one? Balls and strikes is one of the toughest things to call in sports.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Yeah, Mike. I am in agreement with you, even though I was poking a little fun. We should have FJ think up a new word for sarcasm that you actually mean.


Sarcasm + Irony = Sarony? Ironasm?

I wouldn't mind having one of those.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> Any examples besides this one? Balls and strikes is one of the toughest things to call in sports.


 maddux is the most blatant example but most good control pitchers seem to get the benefit of the doubt more than some joe schmo rookie
is calling balls and strikes all that hard, its not like an ump has to follow anything but his own opinion loosely based on the rules , its supposed to be one of the easiest and indisputable, its not like an ump has to do so many other things while calling a strike or ball.

basketball refs stay in constant movements and have to watch up to 10 players at once .

football refs are on the field obscured by players, in front of them and running around them while having to make calls

all have tough jobs but i dont dont know if i would say calling balls and strikes are any more difficult than calling holding on an offensive line or judging foul and fair balls on homers down the line.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> Some fans may love it. A lot of fans may _think_ they love it, but do they really understand the consequences, the trade-offs? And by now there is a whole generation of fans that has grown up that knows nothing of the game without the 3-point shot.


You may be right, but it's all water under the bridge at this point. The three is here to stay. 

I admittedly have only hazy actual memories of the pro game w/o the three-point shot. From what I've observed via games on ESPN Classic, though, there were negative consequences that arose out of NOT having a three-point shot as well -- bad spacing, a monotonous number of mid-range jumpers, and a quick-hitting approach that led to occasionally insane shot selection. After hearing so many people wax rhapsodic about the title-winning Knicks, it's downright jarring to watch the games and see the sort of shots that guys like Bill Bradley and Dave DeBusschere put up. 



> I think saying the 3-point shot was "wildly popular" in the old ABA is a bit of revisionist history. The fact is, in the final year of the ABA, the 3-point shot accounted for 4% of all field goal attemps. In the 04-05 NBA season, 3-point shots accounted for nearly 20% of all field goal attempts.


I'm not sure what bearing the number of attempts has on popularity. But anyway, I was basing that assumption strictly on Terry Pluto's "Loose Balls." He frequently mentions the three-pointer as being something the fans loved to see.



> I have no problem with the 3-point shot per se. I do have a problem with it being 20% of all attempted shots.


I think the three-point shot is an integral part of any good team's offense -- look at the Suns last year. As long as defenses are so quick to deny good interior shots and short jumpers, the three is a nice efficient weapon for teams who can spread the floor and move the ball. I don't like it when teams indiscriminately bomb away from downtown, either, but I shudder to think of what the game would be like w/o the three. Defenses would be packed tighter than a drum.



> In my opinion, NBA officiating is by far the worst of the 3 major sports I follow, and I can't imagine hockey being worse. Yes, the umpiring in the most recent baseball playoffs was atrocious, but only because of legitimate human error, not officials attempting to impact the game. Imagine if A-Rod were intentially called safe at first even if he was a half-step late reaching the bag, just because he's A-Rod and the league wants fans to see him get on base.


We'll have to agree to disagree here. Errors are errors, regardless if they're of commission, omission, human error, or anything else. IMO, baseball umpires make many more significant and extreme errors than basketball officials do. Imagine a critical game five of an NBA conference final being decided because of not just one, but a series of errors committed by a single official. It happened in baseball in 1997, when an umpire suddenly took it upon himself to grant strikes on pitches thrown so far outside to right-handed batters, it would have been impossible for them to make contact with them and remain in the batters' box.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> Any examples besides this one? Balls and strikes is one of the toughest things to call in sports.


I'm with Grinch on this one. In fact, I'm not even sure balls and strikes is the toughest part of being an umpire (I think home run calls down the line or over the fair poles are the toughest, especially in the regular season).

There are a lot more variables in any number of calls a basketball or football official has to make. Calling balls and strikes is downright serene compared to judging block/charge, imo.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> maddux is the most blatant example but most good control pitchers seem to get the benefit of the doubt more than some joe schmo rookie
> is calling balls and strikes all that hard, its not like an ump has to follow anything but his own opinion loosely based on the rules , its supposed to be one of the easiest and indisputable, its not like an ump has to do so many other things while calling a strike or ball.


OK, I'm willing to concede calling balls and strikes may not be the toughest job in officiating. Although I think it is made a lot tougher by the crystal clear view of every pitch provided by the center field camera. Fox even has that electronic enhancement that supposedly shows exactly where the pitch was relative to a box representing the strike zone.

But you avoided answering my question, so I'll ask again... do you have any other examples of blatant star treatment in MLB or the NFL besides an occasional borderline strike call for Greg Maddux (and a handful of other star pitchers)? Are you seriously putting forth the argument that these two sports are as bad as the NBA when it somes to star treatment from officials?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> OK, I'm willing to concede calling balls and strikes may not be the toughest job in officiating. Although I think it is made a lot tougher by the crystal clear view of every pitch provided by the center field camera. Fox even has that electronic enhancement that supposedly shows exactly where the pitch was relative to a box representing the strike zone.
> 
> But you avoided answering my question, so I'll ask again... do you have any other examples of blatant star treatment in MLB or the NFL besides an occasional borderline strike call for Greg Maddux (and a handful of other star pitchers)? Are you seriously putting forth the argument that these two sports are as bad as the NBA when it somes to star treatment from officials?


In the NFL, the refs would routinely turn a blind eye to all kinds of illegal (against the rules) things the 49ers offensive linemen would do to protect Joe Montana. Holding, gouging, face masking, whip blocks, etc.

I never laughed so hard watching an NFL game than one with Madden talking about how great the 49ers offensive line was doing while showing 3 guys holding in slow motion.

In baseball, certain batters (particularly catchers) get balls/strikes calls in their favor because the ump believes they know the strike zone pretty well.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> OK, I'm willing to concede calling balls and strikes may not be the toughest job in officiating. Although I think it is made a lot tougher by the crystal clear view of every pitch provided by the center field camera. Fox even has that electronic enhancement that supposedly shows exactly where the pitch was relative to a box representing the strike zone.
> 
> But you avoided answering my question, so I'll ask again... do you have any other examples of blatant star treatment in MLB or the NFL besides an occasional borderline strike call for Greg Maddux (and a handful of other star pitchers)? Are you seriously putting forth the argument that these two sports are as bad as the NBA when it somes to star treatment from officials?


In the NFL I don't think you've got star treatment, per se, but you definitely have officiating play a huge role in the outcome of a whole lot of games. I think in a lot of these, the desire to let the game be "decided on the field" plays a role.

For example, last week you had a review of the two point conversion in the Redskins-Bucs game where it was very questionable that Alstott got in the end zone.
Choice 1 for the officials was to rule he didn't get in. Game over.
Choice 2 for the officials was to rule he got in. Still 50 or so seconds left - enough time for the Redskins to legitimately win.

They went with Choice 2, and that seems like what they do in the vast majority of questionable circumstances. They go with the choice that leaves the outcome most in doubt. Refs don't like to conclusively change games.

In the NBA, this leads to star treatment because the truly great players are such game changing forces. Foul out an MJ or a Shaq and you're very often deciding the game.

Maybe that notion is a little bit vague, but I think there's something to it.

What, by the way, would you think would happen if the NBA abolished the foul out rule altogether? Maybe after six you get two shots and the ball? That'd have the effect, I would think, of discouraging star treatment to some degree since refs won't run the risk of forcing them to sit down.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You may be right, but it's all water under the bridge at this point. The three is here to stay.


The three may be here to stay. But there's no law that says it has to stay in its present form. The league already experimented with moving the line in.



> I admittedly have only hazy actual memories of the pro game w/o the three-point shot. From what I've observed via games on ESPN Classic, though, there were negative consequences that arose out of NOT having a three-point shot as well -- bad spacing, a monotonous number of mid-range jumpers, and a quick-hitting approach that led to occasionally insane shot selection. After hearing so many people wax rhapsodic about the title-winning Knicks, it's downright jarring to watch the games and see the sort of shots that guys like Bill Bradley and Dave DeBusschere put up.
> 
> I think the three-point shot is an integral part of any good team's offense -- look at the Suns last year. As long as defenses are so quick to deny good interior shots and short jumpers, the three is a nice efficient weapon for teams who can spread the floor and move the ball. I don't like it when teams indiscriminately bomb away from downtown, either, but I shudder to think of what the game would be like w/o the three. Defenses would be packed tighter than a drum.


I admit it's tough to say for sure what eliminating the 3-point shot would do in today's game. It's been in place for over 20 years now, and the game has changed in other ways since the shot was added. I just know as a fan I don't particularly enjoy the penetrate and kick out style of play that results in 3 guys camped out on the arc. It used to be those 3 guys were moving as part of the offense.

I've said before, if fans want to see the 3-point shot, have a 3-point shooting contest at halftime or something. I don't find it particularly enjoyable to watch an offense work for a shot that is made less than 35% of the time.



> I'm not sure what bearing the number of attempts has on popularity. But anyway, I was basing that assumption strictly on Terry Pluto's "Loose Balls." He frequently mentions the three-pointer as being something the fans loved to see.


Even hear of the phrase "too much of a good thing"? I think it could be argued that the three has lost the appeal that made it popular with the ABA-- that it was somewhat of a rare occcurance. It would be like if the average baseball game featured 20 home runs, or if no-hitters happened every week or so. It would become so commonplace that it would loose its "specialness".



> We'll have to agree to disagree here. Errors are errors, regardless if they're of commission, omission, human error, or anything else. IMO, baseball umpires make many more significant and extreme errors than basketball officials do. Imagine a critical game five of an NBA conference final being decided because of not just one, but a series of errors committed by a single official. It happened in baseball in 1997, when an umpire suddenly took it upon himself to grant strikes on pitches thrown so far outside to right-handed batters, it would have been impossible for them to make contact with them and remain in the batters' box.


We can agree to disagree. However, I think most people would agree that there is a _huge_ difference between honest human errors and intentional treatment given to certain players over others. It may not bother you, but I can tell you that there are a lot of basketball fans out there that really hate this aspect of the NBA game.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

To me, game six of Kings vs. Lakers was systemic to and emblematic of the leagues problems.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> In the NFL, the refs would routinely turn a blind eye to all kinds of illegal (against the rules) things the 49ers offensive linemen would do to protect Joe Montana. Holding, gouging, face masking, whip blocks, etc.
> 
> I never laughed so hard watching an NFL game than one with Madden talking about how great the 49ers offensive line was doing while showing 3 guys holding in slow motion.


That may be, but for whatever reason it doesn't seem to get the same publicity as NBA officiating does. Perhaps it's because very few people actually watch what happens in the trenches unless it is pointed out to them by the likes of Madden whereas just about everything that happens on an NBA court is in full view of the fans.



> In baseball, certain batters (particularly catchers) get balls/strikes calls in their favor because the ump believes they know the strike zone pretty well.


Granted. But again, you hardly ever hear it mentioned.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> In the NFL I don't think you've got star treatment, per se, but you definitely have officiating play a huge role in the outcome of a whole lot of games. I think in a lot of these, the desire to let the game be "decided on the field" plays a role.
> 
> For example, last week you had a review of the two point conversion in the Redskins-Bucs game where it was very questionable that Alstott got in the end zone.
> Choice 1 for the officials was to rule he didn't get in. Game over.
> ...


I don't know that I can buy this, Mike. You may be right, and it may _seem_ that way, but there's too much subjectivity in your claim for me to buy into it without someone taking a truly objective look at all such cases and how they were ruled. A lot of times such claims are distorted becuase we only tend to remember certain outcomes (generally the more controversial ones).



> In the NBA, this leads to star treatment because the truly great players are such game changing forces. Foul out an MJ or a Shaq and you're very often deciding the game.
> 
> What, by the way, would you think would happen if the NBA abolished the foul out rule altogether? Maybe after six you get two shots and the ball? That'd have the effect, I would think, of discouraging star treatment to some degree since refs won't run the risk of forcing them to sit down.


I think the "6 fouls and your out" is definitely one of the rules that the NBA could take a serious look at changing.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> To me, game six of Kings vs. Lakers was systemic to and emblematic of the leagues problems.


but Phil Jackson said that the game was called just fine. It was only the games the Lakers lost that were called unfairly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> I don't know that I can buy this, Mike. You may be right, and it may _seem_ that way, but there's too much subjectivity in your claim for me to buy into it without someone taking a truly objective look at all such cases and how they were ruled. A lot of times such claims are distorted becuase we only tend to remember certain outcomes (generally the more controversial ones).


Yeah... I took a quick look around and it doesn't appear such data exists. It should be possible to build a script to parse a game log to look for suitably close games and where penalties/reviews occur in the final two or three minutes and classify them. Unfortunately I'm the ******* who makes wild promises about what computer guys can do, not the guy who actually has to figure out how to do it


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Yeah... I took a quick look around and it doesn't appear such data exists. It should be possible to build a script to parse a game log to look for suitably close games and where penalties/reviews occur in the final two or three minutes and classify them. Unfortunately I'm the ******* who makes wild promises about what computer guys can do, not the guy who actually has to figure out how to do it


 I'm betting Cuban has a team of statisticians on that.


----------

