NBA Dress Code - 3 Years Later (ESPN Bucher)

[blue32]

What does this even mean? That people who make money have to dress in a specific way?



A kid at my school was recently busted for having child porn. He wore mostly t-shirts. I wear mostly t-shirts. Should I stop wearing t-shirts, lest I look like a pedophile?

Ahh....too be young again

 

[PapaG]

Oh... thems fightin' words. Put 'em up.

I too was once against the establishment; then I became the establishment. I suppose if I still wanted to smoke buds and wear polar fleece every day I could simply not work at a job that requires a dress code.

 

[blue32]

The funny thing is, these kids dont get it.

Does the president of the usa wear hoodies and baggy jeans? No. Why not? because, it's not professional. (the image)

It doesn't matter that yes, the President is a class act and is a upstanding human being in his own naked right, but the image he is displaying is of most importance to the people watching him.

Same goes for the people that watch the NBA players.

The universal image for professionalism, is the business suit. That is why they are required to uphold the dress code.

 

[Natebishop3]

How quickly blazer fans forget...

This team/town/organization was the poster child for bad press, bad public relations, and bad public image. If you think an NBA players' job starts when they step on the court, you are sorely mistaken. An NBA players' job starts as soon as they are drafted. They live, eat, sleep, shit, etc etc etc NBA. They are paid multi-million dollar contracts to represent their team, their city, and the league. If they can't accept that, too fucking bad. Get out of the league. There are thousands of people who would love to have their job.

In this society, you can not afford to "be yourself" anymore. If you are a celebrity, and pretty much anyone who works in the public eye is considered a celebrity, then you better act like it. I don't blame Stern for imposing a dress code. These players represent his company, they are the face of the company, and if they come off as thugs, as gangsters, or as bad people in general, it hurts his profits. Don't believe me? Look at our own Portland Trail Blazers. This city turned its back on the team, in large part due to the public image of the players. Hell, we won't even trade for a guy if we think he has a bad reputation.

Wake up guys, the NBA is a product, and the players are paid accordingly. They are hardly getting screwed over, simply because they have to dress professionally while they are at work.

And no, the job doesn't just include stepping on a basketball court. Every team does public outreach. Things like helping at soup kitchens, visiting schools and hospitals, and talking to soldiers over seas. If the NBA wants their employees to look, act, and be professional, that's their prerogative. Personally, I don't blame them at all.

 

[number 10]

yep, and the players are employees of the NBA, which is selling entertainment, selling an image, to white, middle-class America. An employer is well within his rights to dictate what an employee can wear when in view of the public and in an official capacity, this includes coming to and leaving work.

It is especially important when the appearance of the employee has a direct and substantial impact on the product which is being sold. The NBA sells entertainment, life-style, role models, heroes. The NBA purports to set up these men as demi-gods worthy of idolization and then cash in on this fame via merchandise, tickets, etc.
The NBA has a compelling interest in what images the players portray, especially in light of the "Malice at the Palace" incident. The players consent to the dress code (albeit reluctantly) and receive ample consideration for doing so.

nothing wrong with a dress code, surely not racist or unamerican.

And I think it's very wrong and unfair to portray them as something that they're clearly not.

Besides, why can't you let each player decide for himself how his image will affect his marketability? A guy like Jerryd Bayless will, assuming that dressing "nice" sells, make much more than a meth addict like Chris Anderson. Personally, I'm sure there's also a market for guys with a "thug" image, just look at 50 Cent. What right does the NBA have to deny a player that image? And at what point does an employer's interests supersede those of an employee?

Also, +1 to everything Minstrel said, he wrote what I was thinking, just a million times more eloquently than I ever could've managed.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Malone's Elbows The dress code is racist and anti-American. I consider it the most disgusting of Stern's slimey dealings. The players union got bent over when they allowed this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianFromWA View Post
Because Elbows stated that having dress codes in the workplace was unamerican and racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Malone's Elbows View Post
I absolutely did not say that. I did not say anything like that. Please do not lie about what I say ever again. Christians aren't supposed to lie.
I apologize. It was not my intention to lie. Show me what I missed? Only in the NBA is it racist and unamerican, but in other american places of work it's ok?

I'm sure this could be seen as petty, but I'm waiting on this response.

 

[PapaG]

I'm sure this could be seen as petty, but I'm waiting on this response.

I don't see it as petty at all. The guy accused you of lying and also, for some unknown reason, decided to use your religion (or is it, don't know, don't care) as a point of debate.

I've been curious as to what the response to your initial posting of this would be as well.

 

[Minstrel]

Look, stereotypes exist for a reason, they help us survive. Stereotypes help us see patterns and give insight into future probabilities, evolutionary psychology 101. Now, stereotypes can fail when applied to various individuals and should never be the end of the analysis, but they are informative.
I used to work in a tattoo shop and I had piercings, but would I leave my child at a daycare with a dude that was all tatted up and had a bunch of piercings and a "Cradle of Filth" t-shirt on? Hell no. I am able to make some assumptions about his character, life experiences, and the type of friends he has from his appearance. Could I be wrong and he's really a saint? Sure. Will I play those odds? No.

A guy wearing thugged out clothing is more likely to mug you than a guy wearing a suit (on the street anyhow, on wall st, the inverse is prob true). We make assumptions about how other people look to keep us alive. If you're willing to break cultural norms of appearance, it logically follows that you may also be more likely to break other cultural norms and this makes people uncomfortable and less likely to trust you. Humans evolved to be wary of outcasts, there was often something wrong with them. The majority of humanity trends toward conformity because it equals "safety." And before somebody starts snickering about "sheeple," remeber, without these evolutionary mechanisms, we wouldn't be here.

I think you make some correct points here, but I don't think you're entirely correct in your implication that that's just how we are and it still has some value. While I certainly agree that prejudice is part of human nature as a successful evolutionary strategy, that's true of various other behaviours too, like men being absentee fathers (impregnating many women and not waiting around to father any of the children is optimal strategy for men to further their genes) and women marrying for security rather than love (since women incur a cost for having children--the pregnancy and the raising of children--they need to be as certain as they can of the fitness of their mate) that we don't consider very good behaviour today. There are quite a few evolutionary strategies that have served humans well but when humans are taken out of an evolutionary context, as we are in this society where almost no one competes for survival and reproduction, they are not suitable for a coherent and peaceful society. We are asked to rise above our "selfish" genetic programming to some extent when we live in society.

Further, I don't think it's accurate to brand a popular urban style as indication of being "outcast" and therefore a real indicator of danger. It's really more of a false syllogism: 1. Lots of poor, black males dress in a certain style, 2. Lots of poor, black males commit crimes...therefore 3. That style indicates criminal behaviour. That sort of correlation isn't actually very useful, because the causal link is non-existent. Dressing that way doesn't cause people to commit crime. Enough people who don't commit crimes dress that way to make even the correlation between the style and criminal behaviour very, very weak. This is an example of prejudice that is not particularly useful in today's society, IMO, that quite a few people don't bother rising above. They give in to snap judgments which leads to somewhat irrational worldview.

Now, is the NBA best served catering to this quirk of human nature? Financially, probably so. Whether other principles should be in play is, I suppose, up to the opinion of each individual person. I certainly agree Stern had the right to make such a rule.

 

[Boob-No-More]

And at what point does an employer's interests supersede those of an employee?

Easy, the instant the employer signs the paycheck.

But hey, it's still a free country. If the employee doesn't like the terms of employeement, they can always quit and seek employment elsewhere.

What could be more "American" than that? Nobody forces anyone to sign an NBA contract. It's a matter of choice and a mutually agreed upon contract between both the employer and the employee. The NBA players have a very powerful union representing their interests. That union agreed to the dress code clause in the contract - or it wouldn't be there. Those who get paid to look out for the players best interests did not object to the dress code. Why should we? It's good for both the league and the players.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

Also, I intended to say that the process of forming stereotypes and schemas is a net positive, even though they should not be the only factors considered. I should have noted that I am using an expanded meaning of 'stereotype' as opposed to the limited 'folk-knowledge' definition such as 'white men can't jump, blondes are stupid, women can't drive, etc.'

Right. If you mean "stereotypes" essentially as ability to do pattern-matching, then it's absolutely a huge positive. It's basically the entire driver of human intelligence, the strength we have that machines can't yet touch.

I originally took your use of "stereotypes" to be the more limited form of prejudice. "I've seen bears kill five people, I won't trust any bears." Very, very useful sort of mechanism in the wild, not so useful in a human society.

I also agree about there being no causal connection between urban wear and crime, however, people as a whole are terrible at assessing risk. How many people died in plane crashes last year? A thousand, tops? over 42,000 died in automotive accidents. you are safer in Iraq than on America's highways. However, lots of people have a fear of flying (I'm looking at you, John Madden) and yet have no problem taking a car or bus.

same reasoning applies to violent crime and urban clothes.

Very well put.

 

[MickZagger]

What business has a dress code when you're not working? It's absolutely racist. It was done because Stern didn't like NBA players looking like black people off the court.

You see Outlaw in HCP's avatar. He'd be fined for dressing like that before or after a game.

Ahhhhh I see we have a new board stirring poster on board.

 

[Natebishop3]

Ahhhhh I see we have a new board stirring poster on board.

Like we really needed another....