OT....Sorta: Del Curry not allowed to vote for ROY

[Mediocre Man]

The NBA isn't allowing Del Curry, a Bobcats announcer, to vote for ROY because his son is up for the award.

The NBA fails again. How is this any different than that complete homer, Chuck Swirsky, voting for Bargnani instead of the obvious choice in Brandon Roy for ROY? Everyone has their favorites for one reason or another, and I think it's silly that they chose to do this.

To his credit, Stephen Curry joked and said it was a good thing because his dad was going to vote for Tyreke Evans.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I agree 100%. That is absurd.

 

[hasoos]

I don't agree. If you know anything about conflict of interest policies within companies, you know why this was done, and you know it is right.

 

[RR7]

I don't agree. If you know anything about conflict of interest policies within companies, you know why this was done, and you know it is right.

How is it right? Gimme a break. Like was mentioned, how is it not a conflict of interest to have a local team announcer get a vote. He works covering Toronto games. Sees their games more than any others. And drumming up interest in Bargs gets more people to hear him. A conflict of interest exists when someone's supposed to have impartiality. How does a team's commentator have impartiality? If Mike Rice got a vote, would you consider him an impartial judge of the league?

 

[Master Shake]

Lol at the Stephan comment.

 

[hasoos]

How is it right? Gimme a break. Like was mentioned, how is it not a conflict of interest to have a local team announcer get a vote. He works covering Toronto games. Sees their games more than any others. And drumming up interest in Bargs gets more people to hear him. A conflict of interest exists when someone's supposed to have impartiality. How does a team's commentator have impartiality? If Mike Rice got a vote, would you consider him an impartial judge of the league?

You may think this is unimportant, but there may be endorsement deals, TV appearances by teams and other things determined by who wins the award, and there is a lot of money involved. If that is the case, then a family member should not be doing any voting. Could Dell Curry benefit from his son winning rookie of the year? You bet your ass he could. Could your Toronto announcer benefit financially from it? It would be a reach at best. Corporate policies and US law put into place is to protect that from happening.

 

[RR7]

You may think this is unimportant, but there may be endorsement deals, TV appearances by teams and other things determined by who wins the award, and there is a lot of money involved. If that is the case, then a family member should not be doing any voting. Could Dell Curry benefit from his son winning rookie of the year? You bet your ass he could. Could your Toronto announcer benefit financially from it? It would be a reach at best. Corporate policies and US law put into place is to protect that from happening.

I agree that endorsement deals, etc. could come from it, for sure. Roy benefitted greatly from it. Now, if Brian Wheeler had a vote, and though Roy shouldn't have won, he voted for him, would that have been ok? Now say by Roy winning, more people pay attention to the Blazers. Want to watch or listen to games with the rookie of the year. By announcing his games, and getting a wider listening audeince, Wheels sets himself up to get a better gig elsewhere, potentially.

Chuck Swirsky was play by play guy of Toronto. Two years later, he was hired by the Bulls. Now, I highly doubt there's any conenction. Chances are, the guy's good, and would have gotten the job anyways. But his name was sure talked about a lot more as the lone vote against Roy than it had been before he did that. And alas, he parlayed that into a better opportunity for himself. Now, how is that not a conflict of interest. By voting for Bargs, he made himself the story, and benefited from it. So why should individuals who work for teams like that have a vote?

 

[maxiep]

Chuck Swirsky was play by play guy of Toronto. Two years later, he was hired by the Bulls. Now, I highly doubt there's any conenction. Chances are, the guy's good, and would have gotten the job anyways. But his name was sure talked about a lot more as the lone vote against Roy than it had been before he did that. And alas, he parlayed that into a better opportunity for himself. Now, how is that not a conflict of interest. By voting for Bargs, he made himself the story, and benefited from it. So why should individuals who work for teams like that have a vote?

Well, there's one vote for James Johnson.

 

[RR7]

Well, there's one vote for James Johnson.

Yeah, he'll likely split his vote for Gibson and Johnson. And cite what he COULD do, as opposed to what he did, like his BS reasoning for Bargs.