What Do You Dislike About Stern

[RR7]

Saw the thread about him stepping down, and didn't want to hijack that one, so thought I'd start a new one. I'm not a big fan of his, but also don't hate him like I know so many do. Am curious what people's biggest complaints of him are. Especially compared to other sport commissioners. What did he or does he do wrong, what should have been done differently?

 

[Natebishop3]

I don't like the direction that the NBA went under his direction. It became all about the superstars and not about teams. It became all about dunks and highlights and not about fundamentals. He made huge stars out of Michael Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe, but what happened to the game? It became all about big markets and superstar players, which has really killed the game for me personally. You can't watch a series like the LA/Sac series and tell me that's not coming from up top. It's a rigged sport and it's all about money, not the purity of the game.

Fuck David Stern.

 

[OdenHoF]

Appointing Clay Bennett as the head of the NBA Relocation Committee comes to mind...

This smells like a troll thread though, the answers are so obvious...

 

[RR7]

a troll thread?

 

[RR7]

I don't like the direction that the NBA went under his direction. It became all about the superstars and not about teams. It became all about dunks and highlights and not about fundamentals. He made huge stars out of Michael Jordan, Shaq, and Kobe, but what happened to the game? It became all about big markets and superstar players, which has really killed the game for me personally. You can't watch a series like the LA/Sac series and tell me that's not coming from up top. It's a rigged sport and it's all about money, not the purity of the game.

Fuck David Stern.

All sports are about money, don't kid yourself.

Do you think under a different commissioner, it would not have become about superstars? I feel like that ball began rolling before he came aboard. Magic and Bird were ushering in that era, and were already in college. Their title game was all about Bird versus Magic, not Indiana State versus Michigan State, no? I don't doubt he encouraged it, to gain the sport popularity(success) and make money(success). But was it not already starting, and would it have been different under anyone else?

 

[THE HCP]

I don't hate him. But what I've leaned is that the NBA was a drug infested wasteland with no TV deals when he took over. Now look at it........

 

[RR7]

I don't hate him. But what I've leaned is that the NBA was a drug infested wasteland with no TV deals when he took over. Now look at it........

drug infested, with blazer fans complaining about the tv deal?

 

[BlazerBeav]

While the NFL has created parity (and thus a much better product), Stern has created a league of haves and have-nots.

 

[Natebishop3]

All sports are about money, don't kid yourself.

Do you think under a different commissioner, it would not have become about superstars? I feel like that ball began rolling before he came aboard. Magic and Bird were ushering in that era, and were already in college. Their title game was all about Bird versus Magic, not Indiana State versus Michigan State, no? I don't doubt he encouraged it, to gain the sport popularity(success) and make money(success). But was it not already starting, and would it have been different under anyone else?

Yes, every business is about money, but you don't see the NFL or MLB steering games to get the big markets into the championship. It's about how the Stern regime marketed the sport, how they built the rules to favor the superstar wings, and how they instructed their refs to baby the Shaq's, the Kobe's, and the LeBron's of the game. You don't see the NFL doing that. Green Bay has to be one of the smallest markets in pro sports, but that doesn't stop them from going to the Super Bowl. We have no idea who will win the Super Bowl this year. None. There are a number of teams good enough to win, from different sized cities. That's what makes the NFL so great.

 

[RR7]

While the NFL has created parity (and thus a much better product), Stern has created a league of haves and have-nots.

But the NFL is such a different sport than basketball is. It's so much easier in the NBA for one player to have a great affect on a team.
It's also a lot easier, with a minimal amount of games, to have a TV deal the size of the one the NFL does, to create a huge revenue sharing pot. ESPN, Fox, and CBS aren't going to give the NBA that same amount of money, that they can split evenly.

 

[HailBlazers]

stern

1.
strict: rigid, strict, and uncompromising

2.
forbidding: grim, austere, or severity of nature or manner

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I liked Stern. He grew the product and was a gutsy, non apologetic dictator. I think he started losing it in the last year or two. Got too old.

 

[RR7]

But the NFL is such a different sport than basketball is. It's so much easier in the NBA for one player to have a great affect on a team.
It's also a lot easier, with a minimal amount of games, to have a TV deal the size of the one the NFL does, to create a huge revenue sharing pot. ESPN, Fox, and CBS aren't going to give the NBA that same amount of money, that they can split evenly.

Would maybe be better if the NBA controlled each team's separate tv deal, as well as their own, perhaps? So that the billion dollar deal LA signs and the much smaller one we sign would go to help all teams.

 

[Natebishop3]

But the NFL is such a different sport than basketball is. It's so much easier in the NBA for one player to have a great affect on a team.
It's also a lot easier, with a minimal amount of games, to have a TV deal the size of the one the NFL does, to create a huge revenue sharing pot. ESPN, Fox, and CBS aren't going to give the NBA that same amount of money, that they can split evenly.

Yes, it's easier for one player to have a great affect on a game, BUT the NBA has exacerbated that by making the refs coddle the superstars with bullshit calls. Would LeBron, Wade, or Durant be as dominant as they are without the refs? They'd still be really good, but I don't think they'd affect the game nearly as much as they do. It completely changes how you can defend someone when you can barely touch them.

Also, a good example is that Shaq was allowed to get away with bloody murder in his prime. The guy would literally knock people out of his way to dunk the basketball. He'd take a minimum of four steps, including a bunny hop to get to the hoop. Watching Shaq made me hate the NBA and everything that Stern stood for. I'm still bitter about that shit. If I was Sacramento I would have never gone to another NBA game again after they were robbed like they were.

 

[RR7]

and regards to MLB, I know it's gotten better, but as a Braves fan, I remember Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz always getting a little bit more favorable of a strike zone than nobodies.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Appointing Clay Bennett as the head of the NBA Relocation Committee comes to mind...

This.

 

[BlazerBeav]

8 franchises have won championships in the last 29 years. That's why the NBA is a bad product - and there's no question Stern's decisions and leadership have helped to fuel that.

 

[RR7]

8 franchises have won championships in the last 29 years. That's why the NBA is a bad product - and there's no question Stern's decisions and leadership have helped to fuel that.

So it's his fault, then, that say Jordan was such a great player, and his team won 6 titles?

 

[Natebishop3]

and regards to MLB, I know it's gotten better, but as a Braves fan, I remember Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz always getting a little bit more favorable of a strike zone than nobodies.

I think there's always going to be a slight favor to the superstars. I remember when Jerry Rice was still playing, if he would make a motion to the refs, he would generally get a pass interference call on the DB, but that was a rare thing. Nothing like what a Shaq, Jordan, or LeBron gets with the NBA refs.

The biggest difference between the NBA and the other major sports is that there's only 10 guys on the floor at a time. Completely different from the 22 football players on the field, or the 18 on a baseball field. Plus, it's much more personal. They aren't wearing helmets, and it feels like we're right in the middle of the drama on the court. It allows us to feel more connected to the players when we can see the emotions that are playing out. Because of that, I think we identify with these guys more. It allows for more drama.

 

[RR7]

The biggest difference between the NBA and the other major sports is that there's only 10 guys on the floor at a time. Completely different from the 22 football players on the field, or the 18 on a baseball field. Plus, it's much more personal. They aren't wearing helmets, and it feels like we're right in the middle of the drama on the court. It allows us to feel more connected to the players when we can see the emotions that are playing out. Because of that, I think we identify with these guys more. It allows for more drama.

Don't you think that this here leads more to the game being about superstars than anything Stern did? Unless he was to make them wear helmets or masks, or add 10 more guys to the floor?

 

[Natebishop3]

So it's his fault, then, that say Jordan was such a great player, and his team won 6 titles?

Actually, I think the current NBA is a byproduct of the Jordan era, not the other way around. The league was at its peak when Jordan was playing and Stern wanted to keep that going. He needed superstars on the level of Jordan, Bird, Magic, so he created them. He made them. Players are cultivated like a product now, not an employee. I watched this video on Magic Johnson about when he announced he had HIV. It was interesting to hear him talk about the game and how he would do anything to win. How winning was the most important thing in the world to him. I had read a book by Magic before, and one by Barkley, and one by Reggie Miller, where these guys talk about how winning was all that mattered to them. They didn't care about anything else. Do you think that's still prevalent? I think a lot of these guys don't even like basketball. They play because they can make money. They play because they can be stars, they don't care about the sport. It's not like Michael Jordan playing with a fever and willing his team to victory.

 

[RR7]

I think there's still tons of guys who play to win, for love of the game. And, I think there'll always be people who play because they can make a shit load of money doing it. Am sure there were enough guys playing back in the day because itpaid better, and gave them more notoriety than some other job. I think if all someone like, say, Lebron cared about was himself, his brand, and making money, he'd have gone to NY. I don't like the wway he went about trying to win, but I think it's tough to argue that he didn't go down to Miami primarily to team up and win.

 

[Natebishop3]

Don't you think that this here leads more to the game being about superstars than anything Stern did? Unless he was to make them wear helmets or masks, or add 10 more guys to the floor?

No, I think that leads to basketball being popular, but it's all about marketing. It's all about how you push something. Stern was at the head of the rule changes, he was at the head of the marketing and the leadership of the referees.

Example: Stern didn't like that the league was being known as a sport of thugs, so he instituted rules and worked to change the perception of the league. How is that any different than how he chose and marketed superstars? If you watch Euro ball or Olympic ball, you see that many of the "superstars" in the NBA are really not that good. I couldn't get over how Yao Ming wasn't shit in the Olympics for China. He was just like any other center. Not dominant AT ALL. What was different? The refs. There were no superstar calls. The FIBA rules and refs were different than the NBA and it really exposed some of the supposed stars of the NBA. The league decides to market someone, start giving them superstar calls, and that player becomes great.

Another example: Blake Griffin. Yes, he's super athletic, but is he really that good? The guy was getting superstar calls right off the fucking bat. He was getting away with murder as a rookie. Oden didn't get those calls as a rookie. What's the difference? Why could Griffin go over the back on people, dunk on people, etc but Oden couldn't? Size of market. It's the only explanation. It was so bad with Griffin that Andre Miller got frustrated and took him out. That was so out of character for Miller. He's usually a very reserved and even keeled player, but he acted out because he was pissed off about the superstar calls.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think there's still tons of guys who play to win, for love of the game. And, I think there'll always be people who play because they can make a shit load of money doing it. Am sure there were enough guys playing back in the day because itpaid better, and gave them more notoriety than some other job. I think if all someone like, say, Lebron cared about was himself, his brand, and making money, he'd have gone to NY. I don't like the wway he went about trying to win, but I think it's tough to argue that he didn't go down to Miami primarily to team up and win.

Actually what LeBron did was very smart. He still gets the stardom, the wins, and forwarding his brand, but he has significantly less pressure on him because he's playing with Wade and Bosh. It's not like in Cleveland where he was THE man and everyone was counting on him to carry the team. Now he has two other stars to share the load. Remember when it first happened? Guys like Jordan, Bird, and Barkley were saying they would NEVER do what LeBron did. They wanted to play against the best, not with the best.

 

[THE HCP]

Do you guys know how bad the NBA was in the late 70's was?

 

[Natebishop3]

Do you guys know how bad the NBA was in the late 70's was?

How was it in the 80s?

 

[RR7]

Oden couldn't get calls because he was stumbling all over himself and couldn't play defense without smacking someone. But on offense, with a much lower usage rate, (19-27), he shot 6.2 FTs per 36 to Blake's 8 in their rookie years. With a similar usage rate, it's likely Oden would shoot more. So how was he not getting the calls Blake got?
As for Miller, he wasn't mad about superstar calls, he was made about personally getting shoved by Blake. So he shoved him back. And I guess got superstar treatment, because the refs didn't call THAT either.

 

[Natebishop3]

Oden couldn't get calls because he was stumbling all over himself and couldn't play defense without smacking someone. But on offense, with a much lower usage rate, (19-27), he shot 6.2 FTs per 36 to Blake's 8 in their rookie years. With a similar usage rate, it's likely Oden would shoot more. So how was he not getting the calls Blake got?
As for Miller, he wasn't mad about superstar calls, he was made about personally getting shoved by Blake. So he shoved him back. And I guess got superstar treatment, because the refs didn't call THAT either.

If you believe that Oden was getting the same calls that Blake was/is getting, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[RR7]

If you believe that Oden was getting the same calls that Blake was/is getting, I don't know what to tell you.

Different calls, perhaps, but the same amount, if not way more for Oden, when you look at FTA per FGA. why did he get so many FTAs, compared to his FGAs and usage?

 

[Natebishop3]

Different calls, perhaps, but the same amount, if not way more for Oden, when you look at FTA per FGA. why did he get so many FTAs, compared to his FGAs and usage?

I am talking about fouls committed. Not fouls received. I'm talking about Blake Griffing being allowed to go over the back to get rebounds. Repeatedly.