sturt

(Preface: I really think Williams is his own person, and will be excited to see the Hawks select him tonight.) I can't imagine someone saying that who was projected to be #2 in the NFL draft. What college football player doesn't watch the NFL? Perhaps this says more about the NBA than it does about MWill.

In terms of its appeal at home anyway, the NBA game is in trouble. I bet in the mid-80s you couldn't keep Peter King away from a single Lakers/Celtics final. Well, there's a lot of Peter Kings out there... people who aren't like you... people who just quietly have remarked to themselves "This bores the stuffing out of me... think I'd rather go shopping with my wife." But others of us care too much to just go away. We'll be watching the draft tonight too, full of optimism that "just maybe" fortunes will change both for our team and the league. At least the Peter Kings of the world aren't oblivious. Same can't be said for you, unfortunately.

...

Quote: Only you could come in here a couple of days after a great game 7 that was tied going into the 4th, hours before one of the deepest drafts to date, trying to convince everyone that the NBA sucks. (I can always depend on you, Lascar, to notice my posts. Thank you from the bottom of my heart... ) "Only" me? Well, I think Bradley wrote this in the midst of your beloved finals... he doesn't count? And, I know Peter King wrote this just yesterday... neither does he count? Geez... for that matter, maybe all of Sports Illustrated doesn't count -- re: last week's front page story titled, "End Game: The Spurs and Pistons Made It a Fight to the Finish (But America Didn't Tune In: Did the NBA Learn Anything?)." (The writer of the article is like a lot of people -- they know it's ugly, but still are all over the place with the reasons.) If you pay attention, it seems a lot of people are talking. But it's true, I'm certainly not discouraging it.

Quote: I think it was interesting to read Bill Rhoden's column in the New York Times the other day, where he noted everyone he knew was watching the NBA Finals and wondered why the TV ratings were so microscopic for the games. Well, Bill, we live only a couple of area codes apart, and I can answer the question for you. None of my friends watch the NBA. I wish I could get into it, but I just can't. Bores the stuffing out of me. (And, need I say... that's A LOT of stuffing. ) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...mmqb.law/3.html

Yeti, this is the kind of quantitative stuff that's really useful if you look at multiple years of All-Stars... I hate to suggest it, because God knows it would take a lot of time to put together, but I'd say if one looked at five-plus years, then it would be interesting to see if the conventional pattern would show-up, or if you'd find something interesting.

Can someone copy/paste this Mark Bradley article? Thanks in advance for the assistance. http://blogs.ajcsportsplus.com/traction/pe.../Columnists3059

Preface: I don't doubt that BK is likely to take Marvin, and wouldn't be disappointed... but having said that... Would you guys think like general managers for a moment? What's he going to do, talk up Bogut? There is practically no one at this stage who vaguely imagines Bogut would drop to #3. If otoh he talks up Deron or Paul, that posturing says to Portland and Charlotte in particular, the Hawks may pass on Marvin. Trade value wise, he has to give every impression that Marvin is his guy. C'mon... if there's one thing we've learned about BK, it is that he's a candidate for a National Security Agency agency if this gig doesn't work out... the guy loves his secrecy, and there's no reason to change that.

Quote: ESPN is reporting this is so Milwaukee could go after a more established coach. Sounds like they must have someone already in mind (???).

What's keeping them from going ahead and negotiating a contract with Bogut? They can do that, can't they? I don't understand the point of not committing publicly if you aren't either (a) genuinely undecided, or (b) have some reason to think that some other team(s) might be willing to offer you something substantial for the pick after all.

Encouraging to know, too, that one of the (if not the) very best games he had last season was against Shaq. Without looking it up, I think he had like 22 pts and 16 rbs or something like that. If you're going to be a force in the SE Division sometime over the next 5 years, whoever your C is had better be able to neutralize Shaq... if not defensively, then offensively.

http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/showthrea...amp;o=&vc=1

AHF, should I presume that you probably live somewhere close to me? (Lexington, that is)

We agree moreso than we disagree, to be sure. Important point: I also don't consider it a "conspiracy," under the normal idea of a conspiracy. So as not to repeat myself, I'll only refer to the too-long post I made to Weez above. One more thing as to Stern's culpability in this... corporate corruption shouldn't be so hard for any of us to imagine, should it? If you'd asked me a few years back, I would have remarked that Ken Lay seems a much more pleasant and ethically-driven CEO than most. Martha Stewart was a much too-public figure to be so personally involved in an investment faux pas... Nothing should astound us these days.

Quote: To say that david stern doesn't care is laughable. This is the guy who is responsible for the NBA reaching the heights that it has. Just because it's not at the level that it was when they were handing titles to Jordan every season, doesn't mean it's the end of the world. (ASIDE: Good to hear from you, Chillz. Write me an e-mail sometime and catch me up on where you are and what you're doing. I'm still very proud of myself that I had the good sense to hand the keys over to you... you've been so good with this, and it's just so neat to see how this board has flourished under you.) Indeed it IS laughable. That he cares isn't the issue. WHAT he cares ABOUT is the issue. The argument here is that when you boil this down, you have a question of whether the game itself is greater than its star power or whether the star power is greater than the game itself -- and the choice is important because depending on which one the Commissioner chooses, the game will either make more money or make less money. The Commissioner has made no bones about it -- he's placed his chips with the star power. Game be damned. Yes. I'll repeat. Game be damned. Look back through all of these threads of the last couple of months. Practically no one argues that the game is ugly. And pardon me for thinking so, but I think I've made the case that it is ugly because it serves to benefit the goal of driving revenues through enhancing star power, as a derivative of influencing the results (not "fixing") of games. I watched the same game you watched last night, and here's what's laughable -- that such a high percentage of the time, when the ball goes in the low post either via pass or as a result of a missed shot, there is so little consistency in officiating. It'd be funny, if it weren't so sad what we've all lost. Chillz, truly I believe it is a crime, because truly I believe that, indeed, there are more and greater athletes in the NBA in this era... this game ought to be just incredible, and off-the-charts in popularity. I say that because I watch these games (what I can stomach of them anyway) and I say to myself, the passes that Magic used to distribute and the shots that Bird used to make -- what was limited to just a few stars back then -- literally dozens of players today do with regularity. The NBA, were it not entrenched in this star-power-marketing thing that drives the league to support purposely lax officiating, would EXCEED the NFL's current popularity. I truly believe that. And that leads me to this point: the NFL isn't so beholden to whether a New York or Chicago team is playing in its playoffs, let alone its championship. Has that occurred to you? Now, let that sink in... heck, they don't even have an LA franchise and haven't for years... And yet, how is it that the NFL can get by and even excel with that, and yet the NBA according to CNN, Sports Illustrated, and Basketball Digest writers (and more if I chose to dig further, I'm sure)... is heading south... ??? Quote: The fact that the NBA isn't as popular to some people could be more of a sign of the shallowness of the typical american viewer than anything else. The game is becoming more international and as we all know well, when we as americans don't dominate, we lose interest. Interesting theory, but I can't imagine that anyone tunes out because they think to themselves, "This is inferior basketball to the Euroleague," or "There's just too many international players on the floor." Chillz, I just think it's so much simpler than that... when people choose to tune-in or not, it's the result of their answer to this question: Will I enjoy watching this? And more and more... the answer is simply, "Hmmmm... is anything else on???"

I could certainly see us trading down and getting DWill, but at #2? Who voted in this thing?

Quote: Well if the league were conspiring to influence results in favor of certain teams or players, then why are we seeing the Pistons and Spurs in the Finals rather than the Suns and Heat? ...So, I don't buy the contention that the league is trying to influence results. In fact I believe that's just ridiculous. So you don't buy it. That's fine. But a question or two for you: When one fixes games, as we all know, one controls the outcome fairly concretely. When one does what's is charged here, however, is the outcome controlled just as solidly? Fwiw, I would suggest that a single test case does not make or break a theory. Now here's the interesting thing... go to the NBA Finals History on this page, and just take note of all of the years when you can see any Finals that took place during the Stern era without the benefit of at least one top 4 US market represented (ie, NY, LA, Chi, or Hou). http://www.nba.com/history/finals/champions.html Important note: I don't present this so much as "evidence" that I'm right, as much as it is evidence that this certainly isn't evidence that I'm wrong. And I guess the point is, it's just not a reliable measurement to show this "autocratic micromanagement" thing to be true or false, because what I'm contending is that the floor is tilted 51%... Can you still win with the opponent having an advantage like that? Certainly. But over a period of time, the teams getting 51% are going to, on average, win more often than the teams that get the 49% tilt of the floor. And I leave you with this... how do you not perceive any difference between the game now and the game before the Bad Boys era? That's something practically everyone sees... at least if you're old enough to have seen the mid-80s Celtics/Lakers series. The problem has always been that we just never could figure out why.

Quote: but I did keep reading the rest of the post anyway... That took some stout determination on your part ... I appreciate the effort.

Quote: "When Steve Smith, playing now for the Blazers," Sorry. I couldn't resist. Couldn't sneak that one by you, eh Beav?

I was a little perturbed by your replies at first, but somehow this is becoming devilishly fun... kinda like taking-on my 14 year old son in tennis... charge the net at-will. Quote: I'm not going to get through that thick tin foil on your head so I'm not going to bother. I also don't really care because I'm sure you're not convincing anyone else. Okay. Quote: If... Huh?... Wait a minute... What was that about "I'm not going to bother" and "I don't really care" and "I'm sure you're not convincing anyone else." You're perfecting double-talk to an art, Lascar. Quote: ...you don't understand the difference between a routine complaint to the league and something that would look really bad if leaked to the media (evidence of conspiracy, cheating, favoritism ...), then what's the point? If you don't understand the difference between instructing refs to be cautious about moving screens, and instructing refs to look at Yao's moving screens, what's the point? "Routine complaint"... source for that? You seem to like to get all huffy like you have these inside scoops on what Cuban really did or what was really in that video... yet, we never see anything other than your aghast supposition that anyone could think differently. All I know is that, when push came to shove, Van Gundy still said "I didn't lie." And the league for some reason didn't come back with a "Yes, he did, and now the fine is going to be $200,000 (or whatever penalty he should have suffered for not taking back his original assertion)." You just don't get it. Implicitly, even Stern doesn't back you up on your assertion -- apparently, Van Gundy has been allowed to stand by his story that Yao was singled out. That ought to have really bothered you, but I'm not sure you even realize it now. Quote: Quote: Please go argue with someone about who we should trade Harrington to... at least you can probably be less emotionally tied-up in that and can make a congent argument. ... but maybe you're too young and naive to understand that. You calling someone else emotionally tied-up is hilarious. Again, you only show up here with your tinfoil hat to badmouth stern. 1 argument, 1 subject, that's all you do here. So who is emotionally tied to a subject? You even have a cute nickname for the focus of your obsession and everything. As far as me making congent arguments, you can't even spell the word cogent apparently, so why don't you worry about the intellectual contribution of your delusional posts. Don't worry about my age and all of your high-brow condescending, I'm closing in on my PhD so it's not like I'm a 12 year old hoodrat. Go back to your make-believe world and your obsession of *the tyrant* You avoid the context, I guess, for reason. I readily have admitted time and time again that this is a hot-button issue for me. That's different from being so "emotionally tied" to a position that one can't allow themselves to even conceive that the position opposite their own is the correct one. As for "make-believe," would it be fair to say that, at any time in this entire discussion, you have brought up any generally-reliable, published outside source for your suppositions? No, it wouldn't. In fact, the whole of your argument is "I just don't believe it." When you get to your dissertation... word to the wise... you're going to need a few pages of *references* to support your assertions... "That's stupid" just isn't likely going to cut it with your dissertation committeee, like you apparently think it does here.

Lascar you finally made a point that bears some notice. Indeed, the expansion of the league has caused a dilution of the talent. That has had to have something to do with the lowered FG % anyway. As to the rest of your assertion, you choose to tow the Stern line and believe everything he says simply on the basis that he is who he is, I guess, or alternatively, that you are so stuck on the word "conspiracy," you can't bring yourself to argue the other side to yourself. A closer look: Quote: everybody involved confirmed that no ref ever gets directives concerning one team or one player , it's only ever directives on how much they should or shouldn't be enforcing particular calls (how much contact etc...), and given from the NBA to the refs through their website I'd ask for a source for this, except that there's obviously a larger question of why would an NBA person say anthing otherwise? It can't be proven or disproven... all that can be said is to say what I've said: the opportunity to do so is there, and the results that one can see from the one test case that we have -- ie, the Rockets/Mavs series -- supports the theory that the opportunity was, at least in that case, used. I admit I'm just guessing that they may have been doing this for years and years... silly me. Now, this one is really confusing... Quote: Cuban didn't have anything "he could go to the media" with. Then you imply that he must have had something after all... Quote: They said that complaints like Cuban's happen in virtually every playoff series every year. It's standard. If you think the refs are missing calls on the opposition, you send the NBA a tape to illustrate your point. So if he didn't have anything he could go to the media with, why didn't he... isn't it "standard" to do so? I mean, Lascar, this is the kind of double-talk that is just common for you... you really are just so hell-bent to try to disprove how the puzzle fits together that you end up saying things *in the same paragraph* that don't make sense. Please go argue with someone about who we should trade Harrington to... at least you can probably be less emotionally tied-up in that and can make a congent argument. Quote: Van Gundy admitted to lying I'm beginning to feel sorry for you now. Here's what he said... exactly... what he said: Quote: NBA ends Van Gundy probe $100,000 fine only punishment for Rockets coach . By JONATHAN FEIGEN Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle . Instead of throwing it at him, the NBA closed the book Monday on Jeff Van Gundy's controversial comments. . A week after NBA commissioner David Stern hit Van Gundy with the largest fine for an NBA coach and threatened to suspend or even ban Van Gundy from coaching, the NBA ended its investigation and its threat of further punishment. . No additional penalties beyond the $100,000 fine were levied. . But while the NBA announced that Van Gundy acknowledged that no referee had called him, it offered no indication about who did. . Van Gundy had said May 1 that a league official had told him Yao Ming would be watched more closely when setting screens and did not back away from that position Monday. . The league said Monday that Van Gundy's apologies and confirmation that he was not tipped by a league referee closed the case. But Van Gundy said he purposely used the term "official" rather than "referee" to protect the identity of the longtime friend who called him, stressing that he still considers his comments accurate. . "I may have been purposely vague, but I made sure I was telling the truth," Van Gundy said Monday. "The implication from the start that I might have fabricated the call was disturbing, and I'm glad the NBA confirmed that there were talks with league personnel." . NBA commissioner David Stern, however, said in Phoenix on Monday that Van Gundy did say a referee had contacted him. . (Aside: Notice who apparently was lying in the following, as delineated by the reporter...) . "What he (Van Gundy) said was he had a conversation with a referee," Stern said. "I found that unacceptable and (also) his declining to identify him. ... He accepted the fine and acknowledged the statement that he got a call from an NBA referee was, shall I say in error, inaccurate. That makes it over." . In his response May 1 to questions about Yao, Van Gundy never used the word "referee" and at one point said, "You can put 'official.' " . NBA deputy commissioner Russ Granik issued a statement on the league's decision to end its investigation. . "Over this past weekend, coach Van Gundy publicly apologized for his comments last week suggesting bias in the league's refereeing relating to Yao Ming," it said. "He has also confirmed directly to an NBA representative that, during the Houston/Dallas playoff series, he did not have any communication with a referee (working or non-working) other than, of course, during an ongoing game. In fact, his only conversations with league employees during the series were with league personnel in the normal course. In light of these circumstances, we now consider the matter to be closed." . On May 1, Van Gundy said, "before Game 3 I got a call from another official in the NBA who's not in the playoffs that I've known forever and he told me they were looking at Yao harder because of (Mavericks owner Mark Cuban's) complaints. It proved prophetic really the last couple games. I didn't think that really worked in the NBA, but in this case, it has." . On May 2, Stern said the $100,000 fine was an "intermediate step." . "If he's going to say things like that, he's not going to continue in this league," Stern said. "If the attitude reflected by those comments continues to be reflected publicly, he's going to have a big problem with me so long as I'm the commissioner." . (Aside: In other words, "Anyone who says such a thing had better dummy-up or have as big a fortune as Mark Cuban to dip into... that includes you, Mr. "Official" whoever you are... but there's really nothing to this... cross my heart hope to die stick a needle in my eye.") . But Monday, the league ended the issue. Van Gundy, though apologetic for several days the about using the word "bias" and involving his friend, did not back down from his original position. . "I stand by my original comments (May 1) and was quoted accurately," he said Monday in a statement. "As Russ Granik correctly said in his statement today, the contact I spoke of that day was with league personnel. When I referred to an NBA official, people inferred that I was talking about a working NBA referee, instead of an official with the league. I was purposely vague, because I had given my word that I would keep his name out of it. . "I did not want the issue to continue so rather than clarifying my original comments, I chose to let the matter die since I was wrong to bring the official into it to start with. I have been honest during this process, loyal to those involved and have apologized for my comments." Now here's the $100,000 questions, as it were... Find the part in the story where Van Gundy or anyone else suggests that (a) Cuban didn't have a video made, and more importantly that (b) the refs were not told to watch for Yao's illegal screens after all. ???? Look closer... it has to be in there somewhere... it just has to be. By golly... maybe not. Well, why did Stern shut down the investigation then? My question exactly. Answer: (a) the longer Stern drug out the story, the longer the headlines on Sportscenter were about negative things that Stern didn't want to be headlines, and (b) he didn't want to know the real answers as to who talked to VG and what they told him, and © if he got those answers, the media would have to be asking him what he found out... more negative press. But there's also a distinct possibility that there was a "d"... that Stern had and has always had full knowledge that these things went on, and he certainly doesn't want people asking him more and more questions about it. Wake up, Lascar... what's going on with the NBA takes substantially fewer people to pull-off than what it did to fudge accounting numbers at Enron... and yet, while you can't deny the availability of opportunity, you continue to pretend that "gosh no, no one would ever take advantage of that opportunity to do anything unseemly." Idealist that you are, I guess. Human nature and big stakes business like the NBA doesn't make that rose-colored glasses presumption very likely... but maybe you're too young and naive to understand that.

Quote: Im not old enough to remember the pre-Stern NBA (as that started in what, '84?). I've watched some on ESPN Classic and heard about it from a few. Here's what I know and or have gathered. Financially, the league was in a different place altogther. Granted times have changed, sports like boxing and horse racing are barely draws whereas before they dominated...but the NBA finals games weren't televised live (I don't know about regular season games). The players earned far less money...but the game was also more about the 'team' than the 'players'. This began to change with Magic and Bird, moreover with Jordan. The style of play was faster, more 'fast paced', with significantly less 'half court' sets. Offense was often more about creativity than it was designed plays. I could go on, but I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for in that answer. That's a start though. why? thoughts? where are you going with this? I apologize first that I don't have the time to sink into this conversation that I'd like -- I have a conference coming up this week, and something even bigger the following week, so I probably won't be able to expound as I'd do if that weren't the case. But here goes an attempt at brevity... As you've suggested, Weez, the game is clearly different both off court and on it. And while I believe the off-court circumstances deserve some attention, I think to-date, the off-court circumstances have gotten virtually *all* of the attention when people speak to why the NBA is in decline in the U.S. But the reason the editor of Basketball Digest would call the NBA game "increasingly unwatchable," by definition, is an on-the-court problem. So, what's changed on the court that might have made this game different? Different rules? Sure. The 3-point shot is probably most prominent since Stern took office. The jump ball is a rarity now. But those changes have also happened in the NCAA and in international game without any noticeable difference to how those games look. There are more younger players in the league these days, certainly. When the Hawks took Bill Willoughby at the top of the 2nd round of the 1975 draft, I believe he was maybe the second HS player ever drafted, and for years there were only two direct-from-HS players in the league... you know who the other was, of course... he, too, spent some time on the Hawks roster. But the change in the look of the game took place before the relatively recent rise in 18 year-olds in the draft. So, it doesn't appear that rules changes are the culprit in the NBA's uglier game. If not rules changes, what's left? Well, one seemingly-popular theory has it that players are just so much better -- they run faster and jump higher and dribble better and are just so athletically superior to the players of 20 years ago -- that it's made the game harder to officiate. And I think the part about being better is valid. But they're not just better in the NBA, they're better in the NCAA and all across the globe. For some reason that's not completely clear to protagonists of this theory, when a player turns the page from his college career to his professional one, no one can keep up with him... ie, when he palms the ball or travels with it, it's harder to see... when he reaches in, his NBA union card apparently equips his hands with lightning-quick speed and its indistinguishable... when he goes for a rebound, his NBA jersey allows him to now jump so high that referees can't even tell when he makes contact for an over-the-back call... and maybe most significantly, when he attempts the low-post back-in, sometimes the size of the player's biceps and triceps screens off the refs from seeing the offensive player's shoulder from barreling into the chest of the defensive player... So, what you have are refs missing calls all the time due to the increased athleticism of today's players. I have a little fun in describing it, sure, but I maintain that the ridiculousness of the argument is just that evident. Yet, the argument is half-right. Indeed, traveling hasn't been called in the NBA for forever. More recently (thanks AI), palming the ball has become extinct. Those are game-changing in themselves, but not to the extent of this one fact: the enforcement of the rulebook in the low post is not only different, it is different from game to game, quarter to quarter, and yes, player to player. Human judgment and error have always wrought a certain inconsistency to officiating in any sport... but that's not what we're talking about in the NBA. In the NBA, it is simply -- and unapologetically where authorities are concerned -- blatant. Yet, players and coaches, and most importantly, us fans rarely experience watching a game without, at some point, wondering aloud what is a foul vs. what is not a foul or what is a violation vs. what isn't one. Who can stand to watch a competition when the rules of the game are such a moving target? I knew it to be true long before I could put my finger on a reasonable explanation for how or why. When Steve Smith, playing now for the Blazers, mugged Shaq on a Lakers' break-away during the 2nd half of the 2001 playoffs, in the midst of one of Shaq's worst FT shooting funks, and a referee swallowed his whistle while looking straight at what 100% of us would have called not only a foul but an intentional foul... I turned the TV off. With that, the evidence had become over the top. Being one who used to laugh at black helicopters and Ross Perot speeches, though, I wouldn't bring myself to say "conspiracy," yet my own eyes wouldn't allow me to conclude the other extreme of an "honest mistake." There had to be something in the middle. I couldn't figure out what, but there just had to be an explanation that made better sense than either "conspiracy" or "honest mistake." That said, I was quite confident already that David Stern had to have something to do with the situation. He had allowed the game to become rougher... that much was self-evident. But why? For goodness sake, the game had morphed into this ugly, check-your-brains-at-the-door contest. Why would he do this to his own game?... Quite honestly, it made no sense. Years went by, and the riddle's solution remained hidden. Finally, a breakthrough... just a short time ago, as you know, Jeff Van Gundy let slip some information he originally alleged he had gotten from an NBA official, and in the specific context of the quote, unmistakenly, a referee. Well, you know the story. But the most important thing to be gleaned from that whole episode is this: the league office is in regular communication with the referees about how they call games. And if Van Gundy was to be believed -- I believe he was, chiefly because it makes all of the other puzzle pieces fit -- the refs are instructed to watch for specific fouls/violations for specific players, and it follows, instructed about fouls/violations that can be overlooked. That's the linchpin, and it all makes sense now. Why a rougher NBA game? Obviously not because it makes the game fun to watch. Instead, a rougher NBA game makes fouls and violations more subjective than they once were, and when the game was, as I like to refer to it (tho not orignial with me), "ballet on parquet." Why is more subjectivity desirable? More subjectivity lends itself to being able to justify certain calls for/against certain players in certain situations. And this is very important: in doing that, it doesn't serve to "fix" a game, but it does create better/improved opportunity for certain players and certain teams to excel. If there were a desire to "improve the opportunity for certain players and certain teams to excel," wouldn't that cross the line into conspiracy, and wouldn't the very fact that so many referees and NBA administrators would have to be "in" on that desire... wouldn't that preclude it from succeeding short of an NBA Mafia keeping people from talking? Well, yes, and this was the giant rational hurdle for me until this new revelation that asserted a possibility that I hadn't made sense of... With Van Gundy's assertion, there is no need for NBA administrators or officials to be told straight-up, "We want this team (or that one) to win." Neither would they ever begin to think about doing that because that would take things out of their present gray-area into a black-and-white something that eventually could be broken to the media and then you'd see a modern-day Black Sox scandal and a complete abandonment... those are too-high-stakes to risk any such notion. But instead of explicitly fixing a game like that, what if the league were to merely make it easier for Team X and Player X to win? Wouldn't that accomplish the same purpose most usually, assuming Team X and Player X are so good that they are capable of winning w/o any help? Yes, it ordinarily (tho not in every single case) would. How to accomplish that, again, without an explicit "thou shalt" from the throne that would open the door to conspiracy problems? Actually, it's rather simple. It requires no more than two people at the top, in communication with one referee, or three, or league-wide. It might easily go something like this... "Joe, David and I have a videotape from Cuban. He's pieced together several illegal screens that Yao has executed over the course of the season. Look, we wouldn't ordinarily bring this to your attention, but he's threatened to take it to the networks if we don't do something here. So, it looks like, for this series anyway, we need for you to watch that pretty closely." Now, what just happened? Stern communicated to the head of officiating... the head of officiating communicated with the head of the team doing the Rockets/Mavs series... *without any massive conspiracy* (rather, I think the term "autocratic micromanagement" works fairly precisely to describe it)... the result being that the series was affected by the way the refs called the game expressly to the detriment of one of the stars for one of the teams... that action arguably tilted the floor at least 1% and probably more like 25% (tho regardless, anything other than a 50/50 opportunity to win is NOT fair, and thus, corrupt)... and then you had the Mavs winning the series. So, Weez, what happened in that Smitty/Shaw incident in 2001 makes some sense now. "Joe, frankly we're getting a little nervous at the thought that the Blazers might just win this series simply by exploiting the free throw shooting of one player, who it just happens, touches the ball a lot because he's their biggest star. We just want you to be especially cautious about calling fouls in a circumstance where it's just obvious they simply want to send him to the foul line, okay?" (Now, admittedly, what I saw that night (as did millions of others) required the ref standing there to be more than "cautious." But I just can't imagine that he was explicitly told "don't" call that kind of foul.) So, if you agree with me that the crime has been committed (ie, the game has been made ugly by officiating that makes it almost impossible to know when a foul is a foul)... That there is a motive (ie, that in so doing, the league has made it easier for themselves to give some amount of advantage to certain players or certain teams that it considers it in their best interest to highlight for marketing purposes)... And, there is a weapon/methodology (ie, that someone from the league office can simply suggest to certain referees to either watch intently or practically ignore certain fouls for certain players or teams)... Then, supplement that evidence with what you know about the timeline of when things began to change (I believe he left it alone while the great Celtics/Lakers finals were going on because he had no incentive to do anything differently, but obviously the advent of Detroit's "Bad Boys," and then the rise of MJ ushered in a new era in the way officiating was done)... and what you know just generally about how David Stern thinks (ie, its a business (which of course it is), best marketed by marketing its greatest players and capitalizing on their success)... And all of that leads us to the doorstep of that person who I hold responsible for stealing away and mostly defacing the game that I, at one time, considered the most amazing, fun-to-watch, dramatic, athletic demonstration in all the world. Why "The Tyrant?" Well, first of all, someone like that NEEDS a degrading nickname, if only to help call attention to his sin. But I chose "The Tyrant" because Stern has showed a public personna (even if it's not reality) that he is (a) driven to make the league financially successful (nothing wrong with that, at all, of course), (b) by emphasizing his stars instead of the game itself, and © nothing happens out of the league office that doesn't have David Stern's fingerprints all over it. When you apply A, B, and C to the situation described above, wherein, he has autocratically micromanaged the way the game is played in an effort to maximize success of his stars and thus his ability to market the game... I could do no better than "The Tyrant." But I remain open to other suggestions. So, that's the story. Brevity be damned. If somehow that's not enough... ???? ...here's the thread that spoke to the Van Gundy revelation... http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/showflat....&PHPSESSID= Weez, I hope all of this is sufficient since I won't likely be able to get back to you for awhile... feel free to send me a private message, tho, and I'll get back to you as I can.

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/nbadraft2005/

Quote: here's the thing I don't get: while I echo your sentiments about the popularity and image of the game...I find myself siding with Stern on nearly every issue. How is he being tyrancial? how is he the one primarily responsible for the downfall? In terms of issues, I think I could mostly say the same, Weez. For instance, I'm hoping against hope that he'll be able to salvage some piece of his position on high school players in this CBA. So, I follow you on that. Let me just ask, Weez, are you old enough to remember the pre-Stern NBA? If so, what do you remember about it? (Answer freely, this isn't a trap... far from it.) If not, have you seen any games on ESPN Classic? Or, have you been told anything about it? If so, what?

Quote: I think you are just engaging in rhetoric, sturt, because you don't like Stern. I think you need to concentrate your attack on the NHL commissioner instead, now he is truly bad, he allowed the financial issues to go on unaddressed until it was too late. Important point #1: If I cared about the NHL, maybe so. I don't, and never really did. Important point #2: You want me to scold Bettman instead of Stern, saying that he let things "go on unaddressed until it was too late." Hmmmm... let's think about that one... So, one would deduce that you think someone should have been on Bettman's case before it was too late. Which... is exactly what I'm doing here. And I'm wrong to pursue this "rhetroic," as you call it, right now, but someone should've pursued a similar "rhetoric" about Bettman a long time ago? Well, while it's too late for Bettman by most accounts... Stern still has some options in front of him. So, assuming you're consistent, I guess I can count on you to grab a piece of music and sing with the choir now (???). (Not holding my breath.) Important point #3: My dislike for Stern is obvious, but it is not personal. It is based on cause-and-effect that we've all observed happen under his watch in the NBA driver's seat. As a person, the man seems very likeable and someone I could get along with personally. As an executive making decisions, I lay the blame at his feet. Whether actively or passively, he's allowed the game to become what it is today -- which I contend wholeheartedly is less than the game was before he brought his marketing paradigms to that office and allowed them to have influence on the what happened on the playing floor.