sturt

Quote: Yes clearly the all-time high in attendance this year shows how horrible david stern is. You are completely biased on this and not open for rational arguments, so why do you show up to post these things? Pardon me, but I believe CNN, SI, and Basketball Digest are making the arguments. I barely need to comment when someone who writes in a reputable industry publication calls the NBA "barely watchable." Bias? Yeah, as if I woke up one morning and decided that I despise David Stern because he's got more money and power than me? And as if I feel similarly toward Tagliabue or Selig? Believe what you want -- you obviously are carrying on some adolescent contrarianism into this, and you seem to have picked this issue as an argument to test your wings. Someone who you'll listen to needs to tell you: It's not going well for you, and to save face you really ought to either genuinely consider the issue and ask some honest questions, or you should just drop it all together... but, of course and again, I'm not the one who should be telling you that. Through this whole conversation, Lascar, has it even once occurred to you that you rise to David Stern's defense as if you're his sex partner? Argue to your heart's content, but in so doing, you're part of the problem, not the solution. I've got nothing against you personally, but you're just grossly mistaken. Quote: To play your dumb little game... Quote: Stern would protest that attendance was up in 05. But even that is a hollow argument. The NBA doesn't count actual butts in seats, but tickets sold... which means, of course, that corporate sales likely were up, but so were, likely, special pricing promotions. Thus, the real importance of tickets sold is negligible since it doesn't testify to the game's popularity. SOURCE? Will you actually read it and digest it, or is this just a way to prolong the argument and your ego investment in this discussion? Sorry to be so cynical, but for someone who pretends to have the high ground by throwing around the "conspiracy" word all of the time, and who supposedly is approaching this from an intellectual, objective, unbiased point of view... you sure seem to write a lot before you think... It's against my better judgment to humor you, but in case someone else is interested, here's one source among othere... Quote: Lagging attendance gives Bobcats pause By Chris Roush (Business North Carolina) Last November, 21-year-old UNC Chapel Hill student Ben Couch and some friends went to Charlotte to be part of a history-making event — the first game of the Queen City’s new National Basketball Asso- ciation franchise. Couch, a senior public-relations major, shared that moment with 23,318 other fans. He shares another distinction with many of them, including those who live nearby. He hasn’t been back to the Charlotte Coliseum since, nor has he watched the team on television. Through the Bobcats’ first 25 home games, attendance averaged 14,501, 26th in the 30-team NBA. That means the team has sold only 62% of its tickets — the lowest percentage in the league. Look more closely at the numbers, they get worse. That first game was a sellout — the only one through early March. The team had just two other crowds of more than 20,000 — one for its second home game and one for a mid-February contest with the Miami Heat, featuring Shaquille O’Neal. Subtract those three crowds, and the average attendance falls to 13,462 fans per game. Zoom in a bit more, it gets even worse. The NBA counts attendance as the number of tickets sold for a game rather than the actual number of people who show up. The official number in Charlotte often exceeds the turnstile count by more than 3,000. By some estimates, fewer than 7,000 fans were actually in seats for the Feb. 14 game with Portland, which had an announced crowd of 9,213. That would mean more than 2,000 of about 9,000 season-ticket holders didn’t bother to come... http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=19801...S&FORM=CVRE

The variety of cable channel selection is nothing new, as you know. And the comparisons that are being highlighted are not seasonal, but year-vs-year. For your point to be valid, it would seem you would have to prove that TV viewership as a whole is down by the same (or nearly the same) percentage as the NBA games. But that does not appear to be the case. And just generally, it's well documented that the NBA hasn't been the same in terms of U.S. TV ratings and merchandising since Jordan's second retirement. That is perhaps why Stern is pushing the game internationally, and even proposing the NBA All-Star Game to be played in Paris soon... that is the growth area. The U.S., by almost any measurement, is trending downward. Stern would protest that attendance was up in 05. But even that is a hollow argument. The NBA doesn't count actual butts in seats, but tickets sold... which means, of course, that corporate sales likely were up, but so were, likely, special pricing promotions. Thus, the real importance of tickets sold is negligible since it doesn't testify to the game's popularity. I admit that I just cringe when I read replies like yours. I realize, though, that there is some number of fans out there who are just contrarian enough to deny the evidence, and there is nothing I can say -- nor any popular press article I can clip and paste -- to dissuade them. Hopefully, though, that number will shrink. We need voices on the radio, in the newspapers, and on the internet boards to raise the volume. The game is regressing toward pre-Bird/Magic status in terms of fan apathy. And it doesn't have to be that way, but The Tyrant's ego (ie, autocratic micromanagement) is going to have to get out of the way before things will get better.

Quote: No, the NBA finals are still the hottest item on TV(right now). It is just that the TV itself is not a hot item right now. Ratings are down across the board. Source?

Am I a Chicken Little, or am I a Nostradamus? That's not a question I will decide, of course... but I'd prefer something along the lines of a Dr. Phil label. Anyone who has cared to read my posts within the last few weeks knows I'm beating a drum, but those who read my posts when we first began HawkSquawk, and even before, when the primitive AJC board was all we had... they all know my genuine love for the game, and sadness that things have come to this. What unites all of us here, and in fact beyond Hawk-dom, is that we love the game and want to see it succeed. To quote a famous modern philosopher, "You can't change what you won't acknowledge." I'm tired of all of the marketing wit and spin. Aren't you? I'm tired of all of the posturing as if things are hunky-dory. I'm mortally fatigued at the unwillingness to address the things that make the game itself substantially different from the game as it is played in every other context -- ie, internationally, and most abhorrently, at the college level here in our own country. So when someone on national radio, as happened today, begins to stumble onto helping us illuminate these ills, that gets me excited... because real, substantive change isn't going to happen until Stern, aka, The Tyrant, is forced to deal with those ills at a deeper level than simply leveling some fines and suspensions on players and/or conducting some concerned-face interviews. You have to step on the scale and look down before you're going to be motivated to do what's necessary to stop and change the things that got you to 300 lbs. So, I guess I'm just eager and hopeful to recruit more souls to sing in the choir... to raise the crescendo such that the NBA's deficits and The Tyrant's autorcratic micromanagement are too obvious to be ignored any longer, and such that they are just ordinarily accepted to be present and to be detestable. Turning negatives into positives.

Reclaiming the game - The State Of The NBA Basketball Digest, March-April, 2004 by Brett Ballantini WE'VE BEEN COVERING THE game for three decades, and it's safe to say than in that period, outside of the offensive stalling and violent play that almost derailed the NBA before it got started in the 1950s, we've witnessed the best and the worst of the league. The magazine started in a two-league era, and when the ABA and NBA merged, suddenly not only was pro basketball bigger than it ever had been before, but the ABA's infusion of talent into the NBA made the league stronger than ever. And when Larry Bird and Magic Johnson entered the NBA three years later, the Golden Age of the NBA dawned. That age lasted roughly from 1980 through 1998, and not even the Bad Boy Detroit Pistons could derail the NBA's claim that the best athletes in the world were playing in the league. That Golden Age is over now. First, the run of the Chicago Bulls ended, along with Michael Jordan's most productive NBA years. Then a lockout threatened to cancel an entire season and, although averted, created a bastardized basketball season to be forever designated "1999." But that's nothing compared to the decline of the game on the floor. Even as MJ's Bulls Era waned, basketball was slowing down. The physical play that earned those Bad Boys two title rings had permeated the game; grabbing and flopping became skills as important to winning as passing and shooting. More so, in fact: The past decade or so has witnessed a drastic drop in ball movement, off-ball movement, cutting, and screening. Micromanager coaches in the mold of the deposed Mike Fratello are putting the game in a chokehold, melting fast breaks into walk-ups and dictating every second of play. Players are entering the league younger and younger, taking no time to learn the ways of solid team basketball. And off the court, from Kobe Bryant to Allen Iverson to Rasheed Wallace to Jason Kidd, NBA players engaging in unseemly or illegal activities overshadow all the NBA's good works. The NBA has become increasingly unwatchable. A typical offensive possession consists of a walk or jog up the court, a number of perimeter passes, and a long, clanging, three-point or mid-range jumper. Play is flat. Seventy-point games that just five years ago would have earned headline screams now are commonplace, as are eight-point quarters, 30-point halves ... With no flue training grounds for rookies, NBA coaches are charged with teaching the game to an increasing number of players. But no number of on-the-fly tutorials seems to increase ball movement and penetration on offense or quickness and leaping on D. A semi-motivated Shaquille O'Neal dominates the NBA not because he is superior to everyone else, but because the only coach willing to challenge and outsmart him, Phil Jackson, no longer coaches against Shaq, but for him; other coaches just wring their hands or mimic Don Nelson's least inspired innovation, the Hack-a-Shaq. Basketball artistry is disappearing, as are its artists. The NBA is ripe for a return to those attacking offenses of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Though raw, the potential of the league is greater than it's ever been. The clay is pristine, but there's no one willing to sculpt. In this special section, "The State of the NBA," we're opening up an honest dialogue about the game. In our first feature, Tom Kertes writes an assessment of the current state of basketball. Then Irwin Soonachan examines the connection--or disconnection--between players and fans. And finally, Rick Barry presents one way the game could be changed for the better. The NBA is still home to the world's greatest athletes. But the shackles must come off. We're spending a lot of time in this issue explaining how basketball got here. Where can it go now? That's a topic we'll be addressing in every issue to come.

Hard truth Tighter security, tough talk can't hide fact that NBA is deeply flawed Posted: Tuesday November 23, 2004 11:45AM The easy part is over for David Stern. He has sent the necessary message that the NBA won't tolerate the chaos that erupted in Auburn Hills last Friday night. If we learned anything from the Pistons-Pacers brawl, it's that this was only the latest embarrassing black mark for a league with a serious image problem. Now comes the hard part. What is Stern going to do to get his league pointed in the right direction? The NBA has danced around its declining image for years, with Stern always grinning smugly and talking about how fantastic his game is. But there was no confident gleam in his eyes as he handed down a record number of suspensions on Sunday night. Stern must see what the public has been telling us for a long time -- that NBA product is so flawed that tighter security measures and a lot of tough talk about curtailing future misconduct isn't going to cure what's wrong. Aside from the success of LeBron James, the NBA hasn't had many positive moments over the last year. There was the murder trial of former New Jersey Nets center and NBA broadcaster Jayson Williams. The long-running feud between Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal, which overshadowed what should've been an inspiring story about the champion Pistons, a selfless, blue-collar team. Kobe's rape trial. The underachieving U.S. Olympic team. Latrell Sprewell's comments earlier this month, when he justified his pursuit of a contract extension with the Minnesota Timberwolves by saying he has "a family to feed," a suggestion that his $14.6 million salary only stretches so far at his local grocery store. The recent tarnish to blossoming young star Carmelo Anthony, who complained loudly about his lack of playing time during the 2004 Athens Games and then had his own brush with the law. And, of course, Ron Artest's pre-brawl difficulties, including telling his coach that he needed time off from basketball after cutting an album. I bring these incidents up because it's sad. I like the NBA and I used to defend it to people who complained that it was going downhill. I can't do that anymore. I can't listen to Stern and NBA Players Association executive director Billy Hunter talking about how Friday night's events were symbolic of simply a larger problem in society. Yes, that's part of the story. But the more substantial and troubling factor is the reluctance of both men to address the growing issues that coalesced in the Auburn Hills Palace. They're selling a city game to a suburban audience and they act is if that's an easy thing to do. People are concerned about the quality of play, the lack of skill in the game. They're worried about those high school players who keep declaring for the draft. They're wondering why superstars such as Bryant, Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter look selfish and spoiled after making people initially think they might be the next Michael Jordan. When Jordan, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird ruled the landscape there were plenty of players who had their share of problems. In fact, Charles Barkley spit on a fan during a game and also threw a man through a plate-glass window in a bar fight. The big difference then was that the fans believed in the overall product -- the teams, the players and everything else involved. That bond is long gone. It vanished when the league started promoting individuals rather than teams, selling the notion that one man was the key to winning over an entire audience. That strategy has spawned a powerful generation of players who realize there's no reason to worry about how they're perceived. They're guaranteed millions and they're often surrounded by a gaggle of yes-men who are unwilling to tell them when they're making bad decisions. In fact, I doubt that many of these guys care about the NBA's problems. I seldom hear today's players discussing the future of the game. It's as if they can't see how much the general public has soured on their league. But if Stern and Hunter have any foresight, they'll try to reach these guys any way possible and get them focused on the goal of selling their sport. They can reinvent the league. They did it before, escaping the dark ages of the 1970s and blossoming in the 1980s and early '90s. They need to realize that Friday night's fight was only a symptom of a larger, more complicated problem, one that will only worsen until the league stops ignoring it.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - What if they held an NBA finals and none of the stars came? That's the problem facing the National Basketball Association, which is looking at one of its most star-free championship series in recent memory. That's not good news for a league that was already seeing a sharp drop in merchandise sales and television viewership. The initial ratings for Game 1 of the finals showed just less than 9 percent of the homes in the nation's largest television markets watching the game. That's down by almost 25 percent from last year's L.A. Lakers-Pistons final. Of course, weak television ratings are more of an immediate problem for the broadcasters, not the league, which has its rights deals locked in for three more seasons. The more immediate problem is merchandise sales, which are down 42 percent for the year to date. But part of the problem is that NBA fans have not warmed to the league's current crop of foreign-born stars the way baseball fans have. Dallas star Dirk Nowitzki has the best-selling jersey of any foreign born star, but he's No. 24 in the rankings by SportsScan. Houston center Yao Ming might be a huge star in China, but here there are 40 jerseys more popular than Yao's. And both Nowitzki and Yao outsell any jersey worn by a Spur or Piston.

If Brezec isn't somehow part of the conversation, I'm not real excited about this development.

Quote: ABC's ratings for NBA Finals among lowest in history By Michael Heistand, USA TODAY The Detroit Pistons' first win against the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA Finals didn't help ABC's flagging TV ratings. ABC seems certain to end up with the second-lowest Finals ever and might even set a new all-time low. Tuesday's Game 3 drew 7.2% of U.S. TV households, down 31% from the third game in last year's Los Angeles Lakers-Detroit Finals. That leaves ABC with a three-game Finals ratings average of 7.1, down 32% from last year's average for the first three games. And it gives ABC a chance to break the record low of 6.5 (San Antonio-New Jersey Nets in 2003). Breaking that 2003 record would be startling, since it was a ratings low that was far below the average ratings for other Finals in the last two decades. Other than the 6.5 in 2003, the last time the average rating for the NBA Finals dipped below 10 was in 1981 — when that Finals series was shown on tape delay in a late-night time slot and drew 6.7. And as Patrick's substitute suggested today on the ESPN radio afternoon show, perhaps the biggest tragedy isn't the growing number of people who just don't care about the NBA anymore... rather the *biggest* tragedy is that *The Tyrant* doesn't care about the growing number who don't care about the NBA anymore. The NBA. It's fannnnnnn...tagonistic.

The 1970 season is the first I remember. Looks like I might be the only 40-something left on the planet who still holds out for a Hawks championship... though to my memory it seems that Graymule might be in my league.

Quote: (conspiracists beware) No such warning for us AMT's (autocratic micromanagement theorists), eh?

Quote: With Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams considered the top two picks by most experts, it would leave the Trail Blazers to choose from point guards Deron Williams and Chris Paul. But Portland has committed to Sebastian Telfair and doesn't really need another small guard. That is leading to speculation the Trail Blazers might choose to trade down or perhaps use the pick on the 19-year-old high school guard Gerald Green, who is 6-7 and 200 pounds. -- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel By almost any standard, a championship team must be very stable at the C and the PG positions. Trading down one slot could be a win-win, imo much moreso than trading all the way down to Charlotte's picks. If you could come out of the draft with Williams or Paul plus a Pryzbilla, I'd say that's a pretty good deal. Then you go into free agency and grab an Allen or a Redd, and things begin to look very up for the franchise... assuming there even *is* a 2005-06 season, of course.

If so, what seems to be the consensus, Bogut or Williams?

(This isn't my own work, but that of a fellow Herd fan who now lives in Knoxville... thought some here might be intrigued by his premise, as was I...) *********************** Okay maybe not saved but certainly enlivened. Bringing the NBA back to what basketball is supposed to be...fun. I, like most West Virginians of my generation, grew up an NBA fan. I remember huddling around a tiny B&W TeeVee in a friends dorm room in the Towers to watch the Lakers in the playoffs, despite the fact we all had finals the next day and the game didn’t start till midnight eastern time. As much as I was proud of Jerry West my favorite player was Wilt Chamberlin. No one could dominate a game like Wilt. But back then the NBA was full of great players and great rivalries, both personal and team. I loved to watch Russel, Chamberlin, Reed. Baylor, Robertson, West, Alcindor, Havlecheck, the list goes on and on. Then the influx of ABA players and teams, the three point shot and showboats…Dr. J. I saw him play at the forum once. Something to behold. Lew became Kareem and a new generation of heroes arose. Magic and Byrd then Michael. I looked forward to playoff season every year. Then the players I enjoyed watching all retired, Michael three times. The Lakers organization got so screwed up that #44 landed in Memphis. The heroes were gone and the league became so BORING. How can a game with a shot clock, the three point shot, eight minuets more than college, no zone defense, and extra foul per person, and no real penalty for walking have games that average in the 80s? Of course no one can shoot anymore. I was a better shot playing intramural ball at Marshall than this bunch of clowns. I quit watching the NBA, even the playoffs. Then along came Mike D’Antoni. If the Suns were on TeeVee I watched, just to see a fellow Son of Marshall that had done well. And you know what I discovered? Basketball! Honest to god real, fast break, in your face, basketball! Man these guys are fun to watch. Mike’s style of game is great. Fast break, freelance RAG (run and gun for you young ‘ens) basketball. People criticize the Suns lack of defense. I don’t think there is one. The pace of the game is so fast there is a bunch of scoring. More shots taken. They are always either holding down the other team’s shoot percentage or out rebounding them or creating boatloads of turnovers. And always scoring boatloads of points. And the D’Antoni to Lee….excuse me…I mean Nash to Stoudemire combination is something to behold. Passes that seem to defy the laws of physics. Two on four fast breaks. And these guys can shoot. I’d put them on my pick up team in Gullickson any time. The NBA is fun to watch again. I can’t wait till Sunday nite. At least for this basketball fan Mike D’Antoni saved the NBA.

First game of the year against Coppin State, I said to my friend, "I can't believe Morris is a freshman. He really plays like he knows what he's doing out there. He's the most ready-made for the NBA of anyone out there, including Chuck Hayes." By the end of the season, it was apparent that there's a reason I'm not employed as an NBA scout. If there's anyone on the UK team that desperately needs to stick around, Morris is that person. Btw, I'm NOT a UK fan, I just go to a lot of their games. No, I wouldn't take him. By the time he's actually developed enough to be productive, he'll be a free agent.

Quote: Why would the NBA want to make it harder on the only player who single handedly carries a billion person market with him? Conspiracies are always easy to justify because you can come up with whatever reason you want. But in this case, as I said before, this is one of the 2 most valuable players in the NBA that would be getting penalized. And the GM who would be getting helped is the one who has been the biggest thorn in Stern's side? Please. That's absurd, and makes alot less sense than the idea that a desperate coach who admitted he lied actually did lie You're asking me to speculate, so obviously, now you'll come back on me and accuse me of speculation... but that's okay... I think there's a pretty easy speculation to be made even though you have no interest in giving it actual thought: Clearly, Cuban's video producer lined 'em up in a convincing way that challenged The Tyrant and his people. Not only did The Tyrant have something to prove, but I wouldn't be surprised if Cuban -- being Cuban -- let it be known that he might go public with this video on his own... vis-a-vis, exposing the favortism that had been given to this person who you claim "carries a billion person market." In fact, he didn't even have to say so explictly, but may have left an underlying message that "this had better get some traction with you guys, or else." It fits. Cuban, as you yourself say, is a thorn in The Tyrant's side. His history is that he's not above almost anything when it comes to doing what he feels he needs to do to force The Tyrant's hand, and freely pays the fines that routinely come his way. Yao, as you yourself say, is arguably one of the most important properties for the future of The Tyrant's Kingdom. No doubt, there were some "Jordan Rules" actually being extended his way. Satisfied? I didn't think so. But you did say a couple of important things to highlight... Quote: They have records of all the messages they send to the refs. They can check them. "They?" Who are "they," and what possible reason would they ever have for doing that? When "they" becomes "we," then maybe there could be some verifiable answers. Quote: These directives never involve particular teams or players. LOL! Oh... so "they" includes Lascar??? Well why didn't we just ask you in the first place. You play this "where's the evidence" card around like a fake ID, and then expect not to be held to the same question on this most critical point??? Ok... as if I don't know the answer... Where's the evidence? You not only have none... but the very fact that Cuban sent the videos, and then Yao apparently began to get called for the very violations that were the topic of the videos makes it painfully obvious that there was a cause to that effect. Thanks for providing the questions... the answers made no sense to you, I'm sure, since you're busy attempting to figure out someway to salvage The Tyrant's reputation -- for what reason is beyond me -- but I'm sure someone reading along has entered the discussion with an open mind, and now can see the bigger picture. So, in fact, this has been productive.

Quote: Stern can't do anything if Gundy won't talk. Nice try, but that's the desperate reply of someone who has no where left to go... Checkmate. Because the presumption is that Stern wants to "do anything." Simply not the case. Stern's statement is that he has no desire to pursue it any further. Face it. You've been deceived. And you can blame me, but it's not my fault that I'm right on this one. A commissioner who genuinely wants to get to the truth of the matter isn't going to be satisfied with the retraction of someone who (a) admits to being a liar, and (b) has a motive to cover-up for a friend. I feel you're in this for the sport of the debate, Lascar, or at least, you like to take the anti-conspiracy side... believe it or not, as do I on both counts. But for me, this issue isn't just for fun. You may deem me to be simply obnoxious, but what I am is deep-deep-down-angry. The Tyrant stole a joy from my life, and now that I can make some sense of how he's done so, I'm on the warpath. The man runs a business, and he's out to make a buck. As a proud, card-carrying, flat-tax Republican, I don't deny anyone that... UNLESS... they make it at the expense of integrity, and in this case, specifically at the expense of a game I truly used to love. (Some old geezers here can attest to that.) There is no good explanation for the disparity between the old game and the new game... otherwise, you ought to be able to see the same disparities in other sports where they too have faster, stronger athletes. And the "yeah but you don't know what it's like to be a referee" doesn't wash. I have been one, but even that's beside the point. The point is they are not Flash Gordons' in comparison to their predecessors. They are not Supermen in comparison to their predecessors. There is no explanation for why, when a college athlete crosses from being an amateur to a pro that suddenly they become so much faster or stronger. And this past Olympics just gave more support to the point that the NBA officiates very differently from the rest of the world... and we understand, that's for a reason. For the 592nd time... this isn't a conspiracy. You and your ilk like to throw that word around as much as possible for its implications in the sport of the debate -- obviously in our postmodern age, people routinely consider conspiracy theorists are nuts. So, if you make that conspiracy thing stick, then you're able to paste a label on the other side and their argument. Trouble is, there's no conspiracy. There's certainly no "fixing." It's too simple for that. Not sure that we even have a specific word that fits, but the best I can come up with is this: Autocratic micromanagement... driven by a profit motive, with an eye toward giving greater opportunity for certain players or teams to enjoy success. In this particular case, if nothing else, we learned that indeed there is a system that Stern and/or his lieutenants use to communicate to the officials. That much is clearly established. The next question is, of course, what are the parameters of those communiques. Have they, as we know they do in the NFL anyway, merely encouraged officials to watch for certain ways that certain fouls or violations maybe should be enforced, regardless of the team or players? Or have they done that, specifying a player or a team? I'm not changing your mind... But for the great number of us who have seen relative atrocities happen in NBA games in numbers too many to ignore, the second fits the reality of the situation. Where's the evidence? You can call it convenient, but the beauty of The Tyrant's "autocratic micromanagement" system here is that that question will always hang out there... quite obviously... Because there's no one in any position of power or information -- or most importantly, anyone with anything to gain by exposing the system -- who can produce the only thing that would ultimately substantiate the claim. That only thing is a document or a voice recording from David Stern. Like that's ever going to happen. Forgoshsakes, we've also learned he has an ex-FBI top dog who takes care of his security. But we have a motive: profit for a league that has seen its tough times pre-Jordan and post-Jordan. We have a crime: games called in a substantially different way than they were pre-Bad Boys, resulting in inconsistent officiating, resulting in one team being given a 51% (or greater) opportunity to win. We have a suspect: the person with the motive. And now, we have established opportunity: there is a system that has been verified to exist through which the suspect could commit the crime. We just don't have, nor ever will have by virtue of the very nature of the situation, the smoking gun (eg, the aforementioned document or voice recording). Forgive the comparisons, because someone's life is more important than sports, but we all agree that O.J. was guilty. I need no smoking gun to know that the Tyrant is equally guilty.

Quote: And this much I'll just about promise you -- the day will come when the ref, then retired and without anything to lose, will come to VG's defense, and we'll at least have a second voice testifying to what just happened. That is, unless there's an "accident." (Purposely beating that dead horse... pun intended.)

- Did he have a copy of the NBA website posting directing attention to Yao? Nothing he said indicated that, so we're left to think he didn't. - Did the other ref have a copy of it? Again, if he did, there's nothing to indicate that. He never realized that VG would say anything in the first place. And besides, it's not like he was trying to build a case to whistleblow the NBA -- his source of income -- to its knees. One is left to think that he just thought he was giving some inside advice to someone he generally likes. - Could the other ref still have made a copy of it after the news broke and it became apparent that something more than he-said-she-said might be needed? Apparently not. You would think that as soon as the news broke, that part was a delete button away from passing into the internet netherworld. - What parts of the story do we know from other sources? Well, it is a little odd that somehow JVG knew that Cuban had sent those videos, unless he somehow keeps tabs on the Mavs owner... which, of course, is possible... I hear you can rig OnStar to do amazing things. But anywho... Cuban admitted himself that the videos were produced and sent to the NBA office. - So, in a hearing -- what that would actually look like, I'm not sure -- what could JVG or his ref friend possibly bring to bear in that that would have supported their contention? Without print-screens of that website post, seemingly, that they were aware of the Cuban videos would have been the only support at all. And that isn't going to prove anything. - So we're left to think that VG made up this intriguing scheme on the spot b/c he was a frustrated coach? Yes, I guess so. As unlikely as it sounds. Game and set to The Tyrant. Match? I can't give him the match just yet. Truth has a habit of taking it's time, but eventually someone is going to talk publicly, and it's not going to be pretty. And this much I'll just about promise you -- the day will come when the ref, then retired and without anything to lose, will come to VG's defense, and we'll at least have a second voice testifying to what just happened.

Quote: But that he wanted to talk to this imaginary ref in case somebody gave some ref some OTHER FORM of directives. (Bless you for answering so honestly and candidly. That was easier than I thought it would be...) So, now, thinking about this possibility you raise... How does the Tyrant KNOW that the retraction isn't just VG covering up for someone... What NEW information does the Tyrant have now that shows that this possibility -- that you claim drove him to want to get to the bottom of the matter before -- doesn't exist after all? Your answer actually helps us understand that it was NEVER about The Tyrant actually desiring to investigate and learn what actually happened. It was ALWAYS about getting everyone to dummy up. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

So are you saying he knows that, since you believe he monitors those messages fairly regularly? Or are you saying he doesn't know it, and he wanted to know if the message actually occurred so he could address it?

Curious how he *knows* that none at all of what VG originally alleged was true... whatcha think?

Is the name "David" or "Howard"... seemingly new lows of behavior reached with regularity. What's just occurred has all of the markings of blackmail in its purest form. A horse's head appeared in Van Gundy's bed, and everyone pretends not to know how it got there. THE TYRANT gave VG no choice -- (a) ruin someone else's career, (b) ruin his own career, or © cower and retract. Sounds like a choice not too far removed from the old Iraqi election ballots. So now we're supposed to think that THE TYRANT actually believes the retraction, and that there is no need for the massive investigation threatened for after the playoffs (...never understood why it had to wait until after the playoffs, either). Does anyone, even among THE TYRANT's militants, really believe that Van Gundy retracted because he genuinely realized he forgot how that conversation actually went down? You simply can't be that naive. What's more, you simply can't expect the rest of us to be that naive. And assuming you aren't that naive, remind me again how that THE TYRANT truly just wanted to get to the bottom of things. Again, you simply can't be that naive. At the risk of stating the obvious, what THE TYRANT *really* wanted was only for VG to take it all back. That would solve everything. And in Cold War fashion, THE TYRANT proceeded to parade his entire arsenal, albeit just two weapons, in front of VG, effectively saying, "Go ahead, make my day." First... $100,000 fine? VG blinked but didn't recoil just yet. Second... death penalty on your NBA coaching career? VG had to throw up his hands and cry "no mas." What else could he do? It's just astounding that presumably educated and reasonable people can watch THE TYRANT's act for as long as they've watched it, and still apologize and excuse all of the junk they've seen. And this... this should slap you in the face hard and make you question, but instead, you continue in your denial, imagining THE TYRANT to be *above* such covert corruption. It's not been very long ago that Enron was considered one of the most revered corporations in the world. And Arthur Andersen wasn't very far behind. Yet, how many times have we heard it... "You know, in hindsight, it should have been obvious to everyone what was going on." Unfortunately, no lessons learned.

Quote: Here are two basic questions: (1) Assuming Stern was going to set up a conspiracy in the Houston/Dallas series why would he set up the conspiracy against the team with the two biggest stars in the series and set up the conspiracy specifically against the biggest international star in the entire league? Yao led the NBA in All-Star voting the last two years. His teammate led the West guards in All-Star voting this year. Why would the conspiracy be set up to send home clearly the two most marketable players in the series? Answer: No CONSPIRACY alleged. Okay, let's review. What's been alleged is that Mark Cuban got upset that Yao was getting away with some things. Cuban sent videos to the league office. The league office, ostensibly in an effort to discredit Cuban's allegations, apparently told the refs to watch Yao for specific rules violations. It's okay for a coach or an owner or a player to tell them, "Watch out for this or that." It's NOT okay for the supposedly unbiased league office to do that. Rather, they are limited -- as we're aware happens in other college and professional sports -- to saying, "Watch ALL of the teams and their players for this something, and crack down on it, or loosen up on it" NO NEED FOR A CONSPIRACY HERE. All that needed to happen was for Stern or one of his lieutenants to put instructions on the officials' private NBA website to watch Yao. Admittedly, their motive was actually to disuade Mark Cuban and his disciples that a problem existed. But what's happened in the process is that we've learned that David Stern actually has established what should have been a fool-proof system for influencing who gets called for what in games. Fool-proof because no one can call it a conspiracy, because it's not. But it accomplishes exactly what David Stern wants to accomplish. Quote: (2) Don't you acknowledge there is blatant ref favoring in college basketball, too, with teams like Duke or featured players like Jay Williams when he was at Duke and got a foul called anytime anyone sneezed near him? Even if I agree with that, how does that change anything? If everybody abuses alcohol and gets in their car to drive, does that mean the police should back off? Further, even in that situation, you aren't talking about NCAA Commish Bland having established a system whereby the refs for any particular game could be influenced to call things more tightly or less tightly. But that's what Van Gundy has alleged here, and that's why there's a huge problem here. Hope that helps.

It's a perception thing. The thread running through both discussions is "If everything is on the up-and-up anyway, why is Stern so hesitant to take seriously the removal of the elements that suggest that there is something being hidden?" And please, let's not be naive -- if we've learned anything in the last several years, it's that when you put the monetary motive in front, then seriously unethical things CAN happen, and at the bequest of a few important people. Enron is Exhibit A, but there are others. And indeed, did deceptions not occur, even in full view of Arthur Andersen? I'm not one to distrust people until they give me reason to do so. David Stern is one of those people. No one here even denies that, parallel to his coming to power, this professional basketball league began to become something different than it was.