# ? to Laker fans



## #1BucksFan (Apr 14, 2003)

Do you fans hate David Stern as much as non Laker fans? To a hardcore non Lakers fan, he is a notch above Hitler, and 3 notches down from Osama.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Huh? Is there any particular reason anyone would want to hate Stern?


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

No...people just do it to be like other people.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ostertag-fan</b>!
> Do you fans hate David Stern as much as non Laker fans? To a hardcore non Lakers fan, he is a notch above Hitler, and 3 notches down from Osama.


Uh who exactly are you talking about that hates Stern? I know I certainly don't have anything but good things to say about the guy (I'm a Wizards fan).


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

I've got no beef with Stern.


----------



## Ben1 (May 20, 2003)

What's there to hate about him?


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I don't know, I saw a guy saying Stern was the devil for suspending Duncan, unaware that Stu Jackson handles that.  These are probably the same people that hate the refs and their favorite teams coach.

I think he's the best commisioner in all of pro sports.


----------



## bballer27 (Aug 21, 2003)

david stern is cool wit me


----------



## mvblair (Nov 20, 2003)

I don't like David Stern at all. I think that he has created a poor example of a functional organization for several reasons.

First, he has no system in place that holds referees and officials responsible. When a referee makes a bad call, there is no punishment, not even a phone call. (I'm sure that everybody can point to one example of that happening, but we all know that bad calls happen on a quarterly basis during any given game, and there is nothing done about that). There is no punishment to referees who perform badly. As Dubya might say, "who's accountable?" 

Second, he is unwilling to put up with criticism from coaches, players, and members of the media, especially when it comes to criticism of referees. He fines players and coaches who express negative opinions of calls, even if the opinions are completely valid. In any healthy organization, criticism should be taken in stride, as a suggestive comment. 

Third, Stern and Rod Thorn created and propogated the superstar system. This has allowed certain players to do whatever they want on the court and not get called for it. (Re: Michael Jordon pushing Byron Russell). Thorn has even changed rules to suit certain marketable players.

Fourth, Stern has largely abandoned the WNBA. I know that the WNBA wasn't putting up big profits, but he could at least give it some more support, rather than letting it flounder until destruction.

I think that the NFL is a good example of a healthy sports organization. In the NFL, the organization actually criticizes and fires referees! Wow, what a concept!  At the beginning of each week, the NFL actually apologizes for missed and bad calls. Then, at the end of the year, they actually fire referees who have performed badly! (The NBA, by the way, fired it's first female referee a while ago, but that's the only time I've heard of them firing a referee). (By the way, I don't like football, but the NFL is a great organizational model for bureacratic behavior).

David Stern is an MBA, and that is obvious to me. He is more concerned with created a huge cash machine, rather than a healthy, enjoyable sports organization. The NFL makes plenty of money, but they don't do it at the expense athletic or institutional integrity. 

Matt

PS-Please don't flame me if you disagree with me. These are just my opinions. I'd like to know your opinions, and I'll respect anyone who disagrees in a semi-civilized manner, unlike David Stern.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Stern is the **** he is a subscriber to Slam. Stern is the man.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mvblair</b>!
> Third, Stern and Rod Thorn created and propogated the superstar system. This has allowed certain players to do whatever they want on the court and not get called for it. (Re: Michael Jordon pushing Byron Russell).


What? Stern is not at every game, he doesn't make the calls...this is a load of BS.:laugh: 

Even if it was true...how the hell would you know?


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Jordan pushing Russel what are u talking about. What about Reggie pushing MJ how does that help the superstar system.


----------



## mvblair (Nov 20, 2003)

A lot of sports journalists have talked about the _superstar system_ in the NBA. The popular critic is Frank DeFord. David Aldridge has also written on the subject several times, most recently saying that it was harmful to the integrity of the sport. I thought that most people knew that the system existed, but I guess not. A foul should be a foul no matter who commits it, in my opinion. If you still don't believe it, listen to an NBA broadcaster next game. They'll surely say something like "that rookie wants a foul called, but the referees won't give him that. Not when you're playing against *-insert random superstar here-*." Stern doesn't make the calls, but he calls league policy. 

One more thing; the NBA as an organization, as per Stern's orders, actually calls NBA broadcasters and _tells them_ not to criticize the referees and officials. Steve Kerr even mentioned that in a nationally televised game last week. That, in my opinion, is terrible. It's like the government telling us we can't criticize it. 

Matt


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>mvblair</b>!
> I don't like David Stern at all. I think that he has created a poor example of a functional organization for several reasons.
> 
> First, he has no system in place that holds referees and officials responsible. When a referee makes a bad call, there is no punishment, not even a phone call. (I'm sure that everybody can point to one example of that happening, but we all know that bad calls happen on a quarterly basis during any given game, and there is nothing done about that). There is no punishment to referees who perform badly. As Dubya might say, "who's accountable?"


Based on my understanding, there is a system of officials critiquing eachother. This is why many officials are not used in the playoffs because only the referees with the highest rated critiques are allowed to officiate playoff games. Sometimes we do in fact hear of punishments of referees, overturned calls (like how the flagrant against Shaq was overturned a day later), and I can recall a Stu Lantz talking about how some officials’ contracts are not renewed the next year due to poor performance. Just like players, they have contracts. So to me, it appears that you are wrong in this point.



> Second, he is unwilling to put up with criticism from coaches, players, and members of the media, especially when it comes to criticism of referees. He fines players and coaches who express negative opinions of calls, even if the opinions are completely valid. In any healthy organization, criticism should be taken in stride, as a suggestive comment.


Wrong again, he is willing to put up with criticism if you go through the proper channels. If you take it to the media, then your gonna get hit. In the real world there is a process you should go through if you have a problem. If you have a problem with your supervisor you don’t just announce to everyone that you are being screwed…first you talk to your supervisor. I agree that more needs to be done to improve the officiating, but criticizing them to the public is not the professional way to go.



> Third, Stern and Rod Thorn created and propogated the superstar system. This has allowed certain players to do whatever they want on the court and not get called for it. (Re: Michael Jordon pushing Byron Russell). Thorn has even changed rules to suit certain marketable players.


Yes, and Al Gore invented the internet. Sorry, but I don’t buy any conspiracy theory.



> Fourth, Stern has largely abandoned the WNBA. I know that the WNBA wasn't putting up big profits, but he could at least give it some more support, rather than letting it flounder until destruction.


Ummm, the WNBA wasnt putting up ANY profits. I imagine you don’t run a business because you rarely can solve problems by pumping in more dollars. Sometimes you just have to let a business die. If you ran a business that sold a product nobody wanted, would you pump more of your money into it? So 4 for 4, you are simply wrong.



> I think that the NFL is a good example of a healthy sports organization. In the NFL, the organization actually criticizes and fires referees! Wow, what a concept!  At the beginning of each week, the NFL actually apologizes for missed and bad calls. Then, at the end of the year, they actually fire referees who have performed badly! (The NBA, by the way, fired it's first female referee a while ago, but that's the only time I've heard of them firing a referee). (By the way, I don't like football, but the NFL is a great organizational model for bureacratic behavior).


Football is entirely different that basketball, especially when it comes to officiating. Again, in no way am I saying the NBA officiating is good, but basketball is a continuous motion game and fouls happen constantly that can have a real effect on the plays, besides the fact that basketball has way more “foul” rules than football. Simply, you cant compare apples to oranges. If the NFL is so great than why are the players complaining about being fined for celebrating after a score…they even say the NBA lets their players celebrate. Further evidence that you simply cannot compare the two.



> David Stern is an MBA, and that is obvious to me. He is more concerned with created a huge cash machine, rather than a healthy, enjoyable sports organization. The NFL makes plenty of money, but they don't do it at the expense athletic or institutional integrity.


Hilarious!!! Is there something wrong with being an MBA? Did you ever think that because he is concerned with revenues (cash as you put it) that he MUST make sure the NBA is “a healthy, enjoyable sports organization” as you put it. You don’t make sense. Because he is a businessman he know that in order to make money you must put out a good product. The owners of teams voted in Stern so if they felt the NBA was getting to be a bad organization then they would get rid of him. So quit crying about stern and take it up with the owners.



> PS-Please don't flame me if you disagree with me. These are just my opinions. I'd like to know your opinions, and I'll respect anyone who disagrees in a semi-civilized manner, unlike David Stern.


I hope you don’t feel that I flamed you. I am simply trying to get my points across.




> Originally posted by <b>mvblair</b>!
> A lot of sports journalists have talked about the _superstar system_ in the NBA. The popular critic is Frank DeFord. David Aldridge has also written on the subject several times, most recently saying that it was harmful to the integrity of the sport. I thought that most people knew that the system existed, but I guess not. A foul should be a foul no matter who commits it, in my opinion. If you still don't believe it, listen to an NBA broadcaster next game. They'll surely say something like "that rookie wants a foul called, but the referees won't give him that. Not when you're playing against *-insert random superstar here-*." Stern doesn't make the calls, but he calls league policy.


Again, I don’t believe in conspiracies. Sometimes refs just miss things. And sometimes refs don’t call things because they don’t have an effect on the game (for example, the refs used to not call Shaq going over the foul line because he’d never get the offensive rebound…if he did that’s when they called him on it. But now that Cuban has complained and whined so much about the ticky-tack thing Shaq gets called for it all the time now.) So I disagree with you, to a certain extent a foul that has no material outcome or effect on the game should not be called. Otherwise, with how much real fouling goes on out there, we’d never get though a whole game because all the players would be fouled out.



> One more thing; the NBA as an organization, as per Stern's orders, actually calls NBA broadcasters and _tells them_ not to criticize the referees and officials. Steve Kerr even mentioned that in a nationally televised game last week. That, in my opinion, is terrible. It's like the government telling us we can't criticize it.
> 
> Matt


So what if he calls them? I doubt he “tells” them, instead you should have said he “asks” them. And there is a problem with your government analogy. You have the right to criticize the government, but you should not if you work for the government agency you are criticizing. If you do work for the government (lets say the elections office for example and them go to the media and publicly state your elections office is a mess, you will not have a job there for long. This is just unprofessional, there are proper channels to address problems internally. Likewise, if you work for the NBA and then criticize it publically, you are being unprofessional. You should use the proper channels and if then you cannot get if fixed, then either deal with it or quit and find another job, don’t go crying to the media about your employer and then not expect your employer to ignore your criticism.

I don’t think you understand how the business world works and your comparison to criticizing the government is simply wrong. And if you don’t like the business world, then America (a free country not a socialist one) is not the place for you.


----------



## mvblair (Nov 20, 2003)

jstempi,

You make some very good points, and I appreciate the manner in which you brought them up. 

I didn't mean to say that having an MBA is bad. I just mean that, in my view, he puts profits before quality. That's fine, because his perspective is to create the most profitable sporting industry in the world, and he absolutely has that right. Most NBA owners agree with him that they would rather put profits before quality. (And I'll say that there is a lot of quality in the NBA. It's just that sometimes I feel like the integrity of the sport is damaged by the constant demands for profits by both players and ownerships). 

As far as the superstar system goes, many people talk about it. I don't think it's a conspiracy, but I can understand why you would interpret it as me saying it's a conspiracy. They created the post-up semi-circle for Shaq because he was so marketable at the time (with his movies, music, shoes, image, etc.). (Now I think they might regret that rule, because Shaq didn't become the marketing tool that they had hoped for). May rules have been changed because of players, especially the big players, like the 3-second rules. If you don't think that the NBA encourages officials to give veterans and superstars good whistles or no whistles, then you're disagreeing with a lot of journalists like Frank DeFord and David Aldridge, who have criticized this. (I'm not saying that you're wrong about it, because you very well might be right, and we very well might be wrong). 

If the system of critiquing referees is conducted *by* referees themselves, then, well, that's just plain wrong. That used to be called a cabal. It leads to corruption and "juntaing."

I just view Stern as more of a dictator/business man than somebody who cares about the sport. Organizationally and bureacratically, I think that the NBA is in a very unhealthy state. The NFL, as an organization, is very concerned with the quality of entertainment that it provides for the fans. Perhaps this is because football is a sport in such high demand that the organizations can afford to spend time and effort into the quality of it. I guess that my biggest beef is that the NBA doesn't have much transparency. Stern has made it so that it doesn't have very much transparency.

Also, I applaud and congratulate the NBA (like they want need my support) if they've _called back_ calls, whistles, and fouls. That shows a willingness to be transparent and admit fault, and I greatly appreciate that.

Matt


----------



## mvblair (Nov 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ostertag-fan</b>!
> To a hardcore non Lakers fan, he is a notch above Hitler, and 3 notches down from Osama.


Where they hell are these people!? Come on and help me!! 

Matt


----------



## mvblair (Nov 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ? to Laker fans*



> Originally posted by <b>mvblair</b>!
> 
> 
> Where they hell are these people!? Come on and help me!!
> ...


PS-jstempi, I saw that you posted on another topic that people rate you low because they disagree with you. I'll give you 5 stars, because I appreciate what you bring to the discussion. I disagree with you, but you are a quality poster.


----------



## jstempi (Jul 23, 2003)

Excellent points mvblair. While I disagree with some minor things, i think we agree on the main issue that there is an officiating problem. However, i dont think Stern is to blame for all this. I dont think anyone could do any better. honestly, the NBA has the best officials available and if the fire em, where are thy gonna get better ones? There arent better ones, unfortunately, so Stern is basically stuck. The refs also have a union and fines and public reprimands are either not allowed or are restricted per their copntract. So Sterns hands are tied and i dont think anyone else could do any better, not until they come up with something most people can agree on (like adding the additional ref the other year). I think Stern wants to maintain the integrity in addition to maximizing profits, but he and everyone else have not been able to come up with something to resolve the officiating issue to maintain the integrity of the game.

As an aside, that semi circle has benfitted many quick guards and slashers in recent years, not just Shaq. I dont think it was just for Shaq, but if anyone wants to chime in and remind us how the league justified doing this back then, I'd like to know.


----------



## mvblair (Nov 20, 2003)

Yeah, you're right. Officials and referees are the biggest problem in the NBA. I suppose the biggest problem is that different refs have different interpretations of fouls (I know they're only human), and there should be a standard that they all follow. Anyhow, I don't expect the issue of bad officiating to be settled on this board or by David Stern.  You're right that the problems in officiating aren't his fault. (Perhaps you hit the nail on the head by mentioning the official's union...)

Matt


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

Time out:

*Thanks to mvblair and jstempi for debating/arguing without hurling insults, cursing, calling each other names and disagreeing without making it personal.

I appreciate the good discussion without having to babysit the thread, making edits left and right.

Thanks to both of you.

Peace.*


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

I c nothing wrong with him, my :twocents:


----------

