A few thoughts on the NBA in wake of the Super Bowl (a NOLA recap of sorts)
by Stop-n-Pop on Feb 7, 2011 9:26 PM CST
Email
PrintWatching tonight's game against the Hornets in the wake of yesterday's Super Bowl, it was impossible to ignore a few key differences between the NBA and the NFL; namely, that pro football has eclipsed pro basketball in nearly every conceivable manner--especially in its willingness to encourage competitiveness and innovative team play.
In his collection of essays Eating the Dinosaur, NoDak Chuck Klosterman writes about what he views as the NFL's engine of innovative success:
The reason the NFL is so dominant is because the NFL is basically Marxist. This was Rozelle's greatest coup, and everybody knows it. But you'd never guess that from watching the NFL Network. Marxism is not a talking point.
Klosterman begins:
What the NFL has realized is that they have no better marketing tool than the game itself. Every other sport tries to fool us...The NBA tries to create synergy with anything that might engage youth culture (hip-hop, abstract primordial competition, nostalgia for the 1980s, the word "amazing", Hurrican Katrina, etc.)...Unlike David Stern's failed vision for the NBA, the NFL Network does not try to expand its empire by pushing the sport toward nonchalant audiences with transitory interest; it never tries to trick anybody into watching something they don't already like.
After running through a few examples of how the NFL appeals to conservative values, a sense of nationalistic identity, and a system of internal values that make football fans feel like an end unto themselves, Klosterman gets around to what makes the game of football itself so endearing to the American public as well as what drives its appeal: its willingness to innovate:
But this is how football evolves: Progressive ideas are introduced by weirdos and mocked by the world, and then everybody else adopts and refines those ideas ten years later.
Bill Walsh, Sam Wyche, Mike Leach, Darrel "Mouse" Davis, Mike Martz, Dick LeBeau, Gus Malzahn, Steve Humphries, the spread offense, the zone defense, and so on and so forth. Football innovates and changes with what works. It adopted the forward pass. It changes its overtime rules. It encourages year to year turnaround and the importance of a team concept typically reserved for pure socialism: the concept of the greater good.
The NBA, on the other hand, has it exactly backwards. Its appeal and brand is built around socially liberal memes while its play is decidedly capitalist, the American version. The NBA is a super star league where individual talent drives success. It is a league where the rules are geared to allow for the maximum amount of individual freedom. It makes rule changes that do away with hand checking and broad zone defensive principles so that its most individually talented and physically dominant players can drive to the hoop in dramatic fashion. In recent years its most dominant forms of play have nearly completely done away with anything other than 2 man games and pick and roll action between absurdly athletic perimeter players and increasingly athletic power forwards. Slow big men are a dying breed. Back-to-the-basket low post play is all but extinct.
In contrast, Klosterman once again explains the appeal of innovation and football:
Whenever an innovation fails to result in a title, its unorthodoxy takes the hit; every time a football coach tries something unorthodox, he is blasted for not playing "the right way." But all that "not playing the right way" means is that a coach is ignoring the eternal lie of football: the myth that everything done in the past is better than anything that could be invented in the present. As a result, the public arm of football--the conservative arm--bashes innovation immediately, even while adopting the principles it attacks. The innovators are ridiculed. And that kind of reaction is reassuring to fans, because it makes us feel like football is still the same game we always want to remember. It has a continuity of purpose. It symbolizes the same ideals and appeals to the same kind of person. It feels conservative, but it acts liberal. Everything changes, but not really.
Watching the Wolves against the Hornets, I couldn't help but to think that the NBA feels liberal, but acts conservative. It is a constant march towards the adulation of the individual as the driver of all success; this is a tremendously narrow scope of interest--yet, it is pitched as a socially expansive game that appeals to all. Pro football is innovative enough to find a space for the Danny Woodheads of the world. Pro basketball is a game of, unfortunately and ironically for Wolves fans, innate length and athleticism. The primary basketball innovations in recent years have all been the result of players who are simply bigger, faster, stronger, and more physically amazing than anyone and everyone else: Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Blake Griffin. The highlights are more freak show than policy geek and that is ultimately what will limit its appeal to the American public. Despite the hip-hop music blaring in the background, it is a game for Wall Street, not Main Street. They even rig the refs to give the best and brightest an even bigger upper hand. Golden State is more Goldman Sachs than we'd all like to realize.
Why bring this up in a game where the Wolves played lights out against one of the only 2 .500+ teams they've beaten all season? Teams like the Wolves have no hope because they have no talent. There is no hope other than to luck into Basketball Jesus. While they ostensibly run something of an "innovative" offense, it's really nothing other than a lot of standing around and hoping the best players can make something happen.
Watching them go up and down the court against the Hornets I couldn't help but to think that even if they wanted to do something radically different (say, run hockey-style shifts in 2-3 minute segments of full court pressure), the league is fundamentally structured in such a way to make sure broad policy innovation based on team success (you know, the greater good) is an impossibility. You know it and I know it that if this game really mattered (which is another black eye altogether--the idea that much of the regular season is meaningless compared to the NFL) that the Hornets could just call upon the individual greatness of Chris Paul and he, the refs, the fans, and anyone else would all accept that there is no systemic innovation that could be conceived of that could trump the needs and modified abilities of a true individual super star.
I can't stand football. To me, it is far too violent and, well, socialist. Yet, I am beginning to have a greater appreciation of its appeal and vitality. The NBA has it backwards and it is slowly killing the game, especially for the fans of bottom-dwellers. It really is true that nothing changes in the NBA other than a new physical specimen who comes around every 5 years or so. It is mind-bendingly conservative in its play. It is a survival of the fittest and, as a personal preference, I like that. What I don't like is...well, it's kind of boring and I wish that it was more of a laboratory for broad team innovation. You really can tune in during the final 2 minutes and see all you need to know. You know that Kobe is going to get the call. You know that the Wolves will do anything in their power to...well, tonight was a surprise.
Anywho, I'd like to hear what y'all have to say about the lack of innovation in the NBA. Throw in a recap or two of the actual game if you like.
Until later.
151 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And for once
The Timberwolves are the only team to play, and I go to bed happy!
The cock is our friend------------if the minute hand sweeps faster.-BaylorWest
by thewild_viking_twins on Feb 7, 2011 9:36 PM CST reply actions
this would be a suitable game recap for a loss
but we should celebrate the win with a proper cap…
also, this is interesting. bill maher said the same thing as klosterman, but came across much more dickish
Write your own game recap then.
Clueless comment.
by fanslaststand on Feb 7, 2011 10:21 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
i'll put the battle axe away.
My thinking is these guys do 82 game recaps a year, they should be able to mix it up if they want to. Especially when it’s a long, thoughtful post.
by fanslaststand on Feb 8, 2011 4:31 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The smallest city won the Super Bowl
Boy, what a lot of crap you just wrote. The reason that the NFL is the most successful league is parityThe NBA is set up to have winning teams in Boston,. And, there is not finer example of why the NFL is the best run league than the fact that the team from the smallest city to have any major league team just won the super bowl.
The NBA is doing everything it can to have winning teams in Boston, NYC and Los Angeles which will eventually ruin the league, if it hasn’t already.
this is what I meant to type.
The reason that the NFL is the most successful league is parity. And, there is not finer example of why the NFL is the best run league than the fact that the team from the smallest city to have any major league team just won the super bowl.
The NBA is doing everything it can to have winning teams in Boston, NYC and Los Angeles which will eventually ruin the league, if it hasn’t already.
So what you're saying...
…is that the NFL is structured in a way where every team has a chance to construct a winning franchise no matter their market size or local corporate revenue while the NBA will fail because it tries to get the biggest, brightest, and the best players in the biggest, brightest, and the best cities? You don’t see the irony in calling what I wrote crap while making this argument?
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
You're both saying essentially the same thing, just in different ways
A large part of the reason there is so much parity in the NFL is because teams can make up for athletic shortcomings with schematic adjustments and radical ideas, something the NBA doesn’t allow for.
Or in other words, even Phil Jackson couldn’t win with a team that had no superstar. There could never be a Bill Belichick in the NBA.
None of which has to do with all this image-y business.
As far as the image thing goes… I can’t stand the NFL’s whole mien in that way. The players are literally almost faceless, even avid fans can’t even recognize who’s making a spectacular run sometimes. The rate of injuries means fans can have trouble identifying with any given player, because that star running back will last maybe three seasons. I guess the faux-military thing appeals to people, okay, but really rugby is a lot more like a real “squad” in a violent setting, working together. (Specialization has ruined that in the NFL.) Football’s made up of short bursts of spasmodic violence interrupted by much longer committee meetings.
It isn’t just that the basics of basketball emphasize freakish physical traits which are necessarily rare, and it certainly isn’t mostly the “looks liberal but acts like JP Morgan protecting his funds” stuff. I find he latter pretty darned mushy as an argument, myself.
The NBA has a cap system that bewilders the average fan and even the average basketball executive, intended to prevent exactly the sort of results the league is getting in terms of competitive balance, over decades at a time. Surely something is amiss there, and the contrast with the NFL casts some shadows on that surface.
There’s a big secondary question, for me, to do with rules and officiating. The NBA has plainly gotten itself badly out-of-whack in terms of play balance; I’ve said several times before that the way the game’s officiated right now is like a video game that didn’t get it right. From year to year, anyone who plays those things will recognize it: “Dang, shooting guards always score 40 this year!”
One could tweak, not even substantially revise, the current rulebook and have the resulting game emphasize team play more, allowing much more range for innovation and therefore encouraging more range in terms of how teams play. The NBA did that a tiny bit recently by allowing some zone, right? They need to be actively intervening to keep the game fresh and balanced, rather than forcing every team to take the same basic approach to winning. (And in a minor note, NBA officials need to not decide that the game is totally different come playoff time, which has much the same effect in the end.)
And then there’s scheduling. The NBA has the model of college ball to look to, and it manages to completely dissipate all the March Madness-style excitement instead of emulating it. Football’s structure builds in fan interest. In the NFL, Sunday is Game Day, with a couple of steady exceptions that punctuate the year for teams playing on Monday night. Come the playoffs, the NFL has those big weekends everyone is building up to. There’s actual anticipation built into the schedule, for football fans. In the NBA, meanwhile, I’m about as avid a fan as exists, and the league’s schedule is a watered-down bunch of mush I cant keep track of from week to week. Come playoff time the series my team is in seems to drag out forever – and again, the structure encourages stars rather than team depth, with all the time off and travel days.
All those things seem to affect the game much more than Mr. Klosterman’s “memes.” To me, anyway.
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
by feral on Feb 8, 2011 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
In one paragraph you talk about how the NBA is backwards… and then talk about how it’s evolved. If the NBA were backwards, the Kevin McHales of the world would still be scoring 20 a night. And there wouldn’t be a three point line. Or a shot clock.
The NFL is an athlete’s league. Basketball was a finesse sport invented to keep young men from killing each other while playing indoors. It’ll stay a finesse game for as long as the hoop is parallel to the floor.
"Has it backwards"
And “is backwards” are two different things. Thanks for reading.
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
Great article and no kidding
Evolving and devolving are two sides to the same coin, lady. Klosterman might be on to something.
Visit us at http://www.purplejesusdiaries.com for horrible Vikings coverage!
by PJD on Feb 7, 2011 9:52 PM CST up reply actions
Hard to change a game like basketball
Until you change how fouling occurs at the end of games. There are literally dozens of things I would change about the NBA to make it filled with more parity and have it be more beautiful than stop-and-po… errr stop-and-go. I’m sure most of the changes would not work, but they could be tweaked to make it more enjoyable.
I still love playing the game and watching the players work their magic, but it’s like they’re being held back by how the game is or isn’t called, and how the league structures its cap/rosters.
NBA Draft Fanatic
by Casperkid23 on Feb 7, 2011 9:52 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
On one hand..
…I think there are things inherent in the game that make its appeal part of the reason why innovation is so hard to come by, but on the other hand, I think that the game eventually reaches a point where the athleticism becomes a detriment at the highest levels. I’m all for widening the court and the lane. I’d like to see a wider rim. I’d like to do away with fouling out of a game (instead, give technical privileges for anything over 5 fouls). I’d like to see a complete relaxing of all zone defense related rules. I’d like to see hand checking brought back to encourage more wide open full court action (I think a lack of hand checking forces the game to be played in the 1/2 court where guards like Wade can bounce off of anyone and get a positive outcome. If you can hand check, it is in the team’s best interest to open things up.) I’d like to see more hockey style shifts and a more even application of fouls. I think the game was meant to be played rim to rim and as fast as possible. That’s a team concept.
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
"I’m all for widening the court and the lane."
Great idea. Players are so much bigger and more athletic. I think this idea would help to bring the skill back into the game.
Also, any Euro-style flopping is an immediate technical!
P.S. – Great win for the Wolvies tonight! Great game for Love and A-Train!
I have no idea what we're yelling about!
I feel kind of bad for not writing a typical game wrap..
….but I made the commitment at 1/2 time to thumb through Klosterman’s book. Otherwise, it would have been about rotations and the wonders of crazy matchups. The Wolves just matchup really, really, really well against the Hornets.
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
Read several of Klosterman's books
Really enjoy his writing.
I have no idea what we're yelling about!
Chuck is my Homie
He’s actually from my hometown and I know him. I played ball with his older brother. I haven’t read all of his stuff, but I did read Fargo Rock City and I know the people he’s writing about. Seeing stories of our little burg in a book is almost surreal.
They say it's always darkest just before dawn and man, was it dark last year. Come to think of it, I'm not needing my sunglasses this year, either.
by SBG on Feb 8, 2011 8:42 AM CST up reply actions
I second this.
He’s just a very smart human with an engaging prose style. Like a midwestern, straight David Sedaris, really.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 7, 2011 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
and without him working
at Dayton’s during Christmas as an elf (I’m assuming here). Will add to my lengthy reading list.
"Humor is reason gone mad." Marx (Groucho, for the reason-gone-mad impaired)
I've never read
anything to suggest Klosterman ever did elf-work. He’s an entertaining mofo, though.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 7, 2011 11:02 PM CST up reply actions
I doubt they'll every widen the court
It’s the same thing happening in the NHL. They are selling court side/rink side seats at a massive premium, and those fans want to be close to the action. Widening the lane could certainly be done. If you want to get crazy, let’s try four on four. As big and fast as guys are today, the extra space is needed, but the change is too radical to ever be considered. Another plus is that the worst player on the court at any time would now be sitting on the bench!
2 balls - same time
I’m not saying this is a good idea.
But Im curious what it would look like.
by fanslaststand on Feb 8, 2011 12:02 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Hate to tell you this, but...
If they make the court bigger, they edges of the court would be longer and there would then be MORE courtside seats to sell.
Thank you for the remedial geometry.
Let’s go nuts and calculate how many cylinder-side seats one could sell in a vertical arena!
"Those things about which we cannot theorize, we must narrate." – Umberto Eco
I get that
by closer to the action, I guess I mean the rims. Widening the court just moves people farther away. This is also why NHL rinks have been shrinking for years.
Need to go back to the 70's
When after a certain amount of fouls, it became three to make two. This made dogging it until the end very risky, because it was harder to catch up based on the other team missing fouls.
Superstars
Is absolutely what is wrong with the NBA. Since Jordan, Stern decided to focus the league’s marketing on creating superstars, leading to superstar calls and rules and refereeing to enable those superstars to dominate. It ruins the competitiveness of the games and prevents teamwork from trumping individual talent, which should never be allowed in a team sport.
Allow zone, do away with 3 seconds, minimize isolation plays, encourage team basketball, not hero basketball. And while I’m changing rules, I would also do away with the charge – that should just be a legal defensive play and a no-call
The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self-awareness
by Victor Mature on Feb 7, 2011 9:55 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
A agree to an extent
I wish the NBA was more team oriented, and I especially wish that superstar foul calls are ridiculous. While basketball is a team game though, you have some transcendant talents that stand out above the rest. I think you will always have those select players that standout from the rest of their team. I also agree with doing away with the three second defensive rule, it’s ridiculous. I’d also like hand checking to be allowed again.
With only 10 guys on the floor
it’s tough to hold back individual greatness. Wilt Chamberlain proved this well before Jordan. However, there are still individuals that can dominate the game, but do so in a way that is graceful and within the team concept. Russell, Bird, Magic, and Nash all come to mind in this respect.
by Rascal Flatts on Feb 7, 2011 10:13 PM CST up reply actions
I do miss the days when pro basketball seemed more team oriented,
although I’m not sure that it really was, at least in the 70’s and 80’s. Magic and Bird and MJ may have been on somewhat good teams, but totally dominated large stretches of games. And got all the calls in the world from the refs. You would likely have to go back to the 50’s and early 60’s to find anything less than “superstar” dominated play. Maybe I miss your point, but I think the good old days weren’t really all that different from today.
"Always be smarter than the people who hire you." - Lena Horne
The most expensive team in the NBA according to Forbes
is the New York Knicks, and they’re still worth about $50 million less than the worst nfl team in terms of value the Jacksonville Jaguars. NFL lockout my ass.
"I haven't died," he said. "Right now I'm drinking a beer and eating fried chicken. What were you expecting, a funeral?" - Yao Ming
No kidding
Never mind that the owners will still pocket the TV revenues if they don’t play and that only 1 team had a negative operating income (Miami). The players’ salaries are tied to overall revenue and their percentage of the pie has actually gone down over the last few years. The owners are the ones who cut this current CBA short.
The thing that really bothers me is that you already see some lazy ass journalism trying to paint this as just a bunch of rich people fighting and the fan is the one who will get screwed. There are legitimate beefs here and real issues to be talked about. Instead, the whole “they’re both going to ruin it for everyone” meme is gaining hold. Kind of sad.
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
NFL players have a major problem here
Most can be easily replaced. NFL fans are rooting for laundry and helmets, not individuals like in baseball and basketball. Eighty percent of the players in the NFL could be cut and replaced by somebody making a quarter the money, and the average fan wouldn’t notice a difference when watching games. On the flip side, those 80% of the players losing their job would be lucky to make 10% of their NFL salaries in the real world.
This is sorta unrelated
But I’ve always wondered how many people favor redistribution, parity, and regulation in sports while advocating less in government – or vice versa.
I’m not advocating one view or the other, I just find that idea and the various meanings one could glean from it interesting.
"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN
Parity does not mean redistribution -
it means a fare chance at competing. Why in the world should the Wolves have never gotten the first or second pick in the draft? The lottery gives teams that have no business being in the lottery the chance to win the number one pick and get that franchise changing player. The lottery isn’t in place to make sure the bad teams tank during the regular season – it is in place so that even the good teams can add more stars. You could tank all you want but that is not a guarantee you will get the best player with the first pick. The lottery should have been gone a long time ago.
Why did the Wolves get 5 (then two given back) draft picks taken from them? Cleveland mad an under the table deal to trade for Jamison and then re-sign Ilgausgas as a free agent and that kind of deal is completely ignored. New York just got busted for cheating for many years bringing in players for illegal workouts befrore the draft – they got a slap on the hand and fined small change – they were messing with the draft and didn’t even lose a draft pick. We should have received a penalty for the Joe Smith deal; but why was our franchise set back for 10 years while others get away with barely a slap on their hand? Because they are in a major market? Because they have a superstar on their team?
by killerhoopage on Feb 7, 2011 11:49 PM CST up reply actions
I understand the difference
And both exist in the NFL, with at least some relationship between the two. It’s a fair question as to whether that’s the best way of doing things, but it’s not a question of whether it is actually happening.
"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN
The major league sports
by nature are monopolies, socialistic, etc. whatever you want to call them. So unlike our government (which is supposed to be it’s people) the leagues have all the control with how they run their league. The fans have little say other than the dollars they spend on the teams. We as fans have no vote on who runs the franchises, how the rules are established, who the refs are, how punishments are handed out, etc. They already control or influence the parity, distribution, and regulation!
by killerhoopage on Feb 8, 2011 12:08 AM CST up reply actions
Wasn't trying to imply
you didn’t understand the difference – I did like your question!
by killerhoopage on Feb 8, 2011 12:16 AM CST up reply actions
I don't think there is that much to it...
I think the number one reason for football’s success is the accessibility of the 16 game season. It is far easier to mentally invest in afootball team because it only requires spending 3 hours on a weekend sitting couch side.
It’s for this same reason that serials like NCIS or CSI kill in the ratings while show like that require more investment (the wire, terriers, etc) struggle to gain huge ratings.
I wasn't swayed
by Blakeley on Feb 7, 2011 10:07 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
There is obviously much more to...
…the NFL’s success. Policy geek wise, they have the 3rd down (great for TV) and fantasy football (great for gambling and maintaining casual fan interest in a wide variety of games). They also have much more on the line for each game. That being said, I’m going for the 30,000 foot philosophical view with this one. I couldn’t fit it all into a single essay in between 1/2 time and the end of the game ;)
That's Mr. Downer to you.
www.canishoopus.com
I think the most exciting potential innovation would be...
A single elimination tourney for the 7th and/or 8th seed in each conference. It would be great while also solving many tanking related problems.
I wasn't swayed
by Blakeley on Feb 7, 2011 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Agree
They should not be playing basketball in June! Shorten the season to 50-60 games max making games mean more during the refular season. Shorten the playoff series – only the Finals should be 7 games. Maybe a progressive playoffs – single elimination, best of three, best of five, and best of 7 would make for increasing drama and the only the better teams playing longer series etc.
by killerhoopage on Feb 7, 2011 10:44 PM CST up reply actions
Hell yes
I don’t know about best of three though.
Too bad that none of this will happen until at least when Stern retires or maybe longer.
by CoffeeJanitor on Feb 7, 2011 10:45 PM CST up reply actions
Back to back playoff games
One part of catering to the individual superstars is that they do not play back-to-back playoff games. This means that you can significantly shorten your rotation and guys like Kobe/Wade etc. will always play 40+ minutes in a playoff game. I would like to see that 8th bench spot matter a little more, play 2 games in 2 days, rest 1 day while changing cities and repeat. Not only does this emphasize depth it also shortens the postseason which is so long right now that I don’t go out of my way to watch round 1 games unless the Wolves are playing (hahahaha).
Other things I'm in favor of
No defensive 3 seconds, bring back hand checking, relax all restrictions on zone defense and SnPs suggestion of a wider lane is very intriguing. Most of all however I would like to see the refs somehow ref the games more fairly. I’m never 100% happy with any games reffing, but in the NFL I don’t walk away thinking the refs can decide a game.
The NBA is so rigged that . . .
It won’t allow any point guard to succeed in a T-wolves uniform:
Cleveland: R. Sessions 19 Pts, 6 Reb, 13 Ast, 2 Stl
I'd be on board with that if
it was a best 2 of 3 series. Anything more would extend the season into July which wouldn’t be in anyone’s interests.
"Always be smarter than the people who hire you." - Lena Horne
Oh wait, I didn't actually read your post
Sorry. Single elimination would be a good idea!
"Always be smarter than the people who hire you." - Lena Horne
reward teams for trying, not tanking:
e.g., the number one draft goes to the team with the worst record in the first half of the season that improves most in the second half. Total losses in first half plus total wins of that team in the second half results in draft position.
I'll probably have more to say about this tomorrow when I've had time to digest this piece
but my initial reaction is that this is somewhat related to an argument that I’ve made before: that the problem for the NBA is that the better team wins too often. It’s very difficult to maintain fan interest when the best team wins too often (or doesn’t win often enough). Hence you can just “tune in for the last 2 minutes.”
As for the “superstar” culture, I’m not entirely fussed; the truth about the NBA is that superstars win. Jordan won. Yes, he became grotesquely lionized, but the way the game is, the best players usually win.
As for innovation, this is interesting, but I’m not entirely sure it’s right. I do think some of the rules changes have been ill-advised (I sometimes wonder if the 3 point shot hasn’t outlived its usefulness—that as much as the hand check rules have slowed the game down, I believe). However, guys like Don Nelson and Mike D’Antoni manage(d) to stay employed as coaches for a long time with rather unusual approaches.
A lot to think about.
I say SHONDA you say WOLVES" SHONDA! WOLVES!
by Eric in Madison on Feb 7, 2011 10:26 PM CST reply actions
Parity and gambling are huge for the NFL
especially compared to the NBA. Gamblers play the NFL because there is a perception of non-bias with refs and leagues, while in the NBA, refs have far too much control of the outcome of any given game.
Parity helps as well. Since 1991, only two NFC teams have not been to the Super Bowl (MN and Detroit). Even then, MN has been to the conference finals three times, and I believe Detroit has once. The bigger problem is, three years ago, everybody knew the Wolves wouldn’t be in the Finals this year. Conversely, three years ago, who would have predicted New Orleans and Green Bay winning the last two Super Bowls?
The 16 game season also helps immensely. The NBA would be far more interesting with a 50 game schedule.
One other little thing. The NFL uses college football to develop their players. It’s a great benefit to them. Almost every player drafted in the NFL is seen as being game ready, that is not the case in the NBA, where too many raw players are drafted and stuck on benches.
NFL is more successful than the NBA because
Football is more of a team sport. You have many more players, and thus, each player has less effect on the game-fouls, Technicals, etc. The NFL has very specific statements regarding ruling and generally follows them to a T. The NBA, however, often does not follow the rulebook.
-Consequently, stars in the NBA have huge effects on the game
-This is made worse by biased officiating (not to mention crappy officiating in general)
-Officiating is partly made difficult because of the ambiguity of many calls
NFL sells the game itself, NBA sells crazy dunks-it doesn’t do this in the way the NBA does it, but by simply making things more fair (OT rules for example).
-NBA does not actually represent the game as it should be played; again, rules are created that make high-flying beneficial
-NBA does not have a hard cap
-NBA owners do not have nearly enough control over the players
-Regular season is too long. Games are devalued
-Postseason is too long. Too many teams are let in.
-Because of this, the first round is more or less pointless. The second is sometimes, too. Upsets cannot happen because of the length of series.
-NFL players play harder because there are less games to be played
-No guaranteed contracts in the NFL. Players play harder.
-NFL consistently tweaks rules to improve the onfield product
-NBA is built upon “legacy franchises”, while NFL is built on the game itself
-The Lottery is broken and shady. NFL has the draft system right.
-In short, NBA = absolutely no parity. You know the 2-4 teams that have a chance to win the title at the start of every year.
The biggest reason of all, though…
David Stern.
(I’m sure I rewrote some of what you wrote but just my opinion on the matter)
WTF
Apparently hyphening everything leads to unreadability.
Imma copypasta this again.
Football is more of a team sport. You have many more players, and thus, each player has less effect on the game
Consequently, stars in the NBA have huge effects on the game
This is made worse by biased officiating (not to mention crappy officiating in general)
Officiating is partly made difficult because of the ambiguity of many calls-fouls, Technicals, etc. he NFL has very specific statements regarding ruling and generally follows them to a T. The NBA, however, often does not follow the rulebook.
NFL sells the game itself, NBA sells crazy dunks
NBA does not actually represent the game as it should be played; again, rules are created that make high-flying beneficial
NBA does not have a hard cap
NBA owners do not have nearly enough control over the players
Regular season is too long. Games are devalued
Postseason is too long. Too many teams are let in.
Because of this, the first round is more or less pointless. The second is sometimes, too. Upsets cannot happen because of the length of series.
NFL players play harder because there are less games to be played
No guaranteed contracts in the NFL. Players play harder.
NFL consistently tweaks rules to improve the onfield product-it doesn’t do this in the way the NBA does it, but by simply making things more fair (OT rules for example).
NBA is built upon "legacy franchises", while NFL is built on the game itself
The Lottery is broken and shady. NFL has the draft system right.
In short, NBA = absolutely no parity. You know the 2-4 teams that have a chance to win the title at the start of every year.
The biggest reason of all, though…
David Stern.
(I’m sure I rewrote some of what you wrote but just my opinion on the matter)
by CoffeeJanitor on Feb 7, 2011 10:34 PM CST up reply actions
I don’t get how you can blame the differences between the sports on David Stern. The NFL sells the game itself because it CAN. On and off the field, superstars are not as important. On the field, an NBA superstar can lead a mediocre team to 60 wins. He touches the ball and completely changes the game for everyone on the court. In the NFL, a superstar QB needs a great line, a good RB to make the defense respect the run, and good WRs that can free themselves up.
Off the field, the NFL doesn’t need superstars because NFL is a VERY easy sport to market. It’s a purely American sport that often have family traditions tied to (i.e. watching the game with your dad every Sunday). The NFL needs no commitment. 16 games a year. 3 hours a game. Normally on Sundays where no one works. For you to watch every NFL game, all you really need is a reason to hang out with your buddies. No need to be a hardcore fan. The NBA is 82 games a year. 3 hours a game. 3-4 games a week. For anyone to watch every NBA game, you need to be an extremely hardcore fan. If you follow a bad team, it’s probably going to be impossible to emotionally invest yourself for that long.
The NBA has tweaked rules to make its product better (shotclock, 3 pt line, handcheck, zone, clear path). A lot of you guys are complaining about handchecks but do you remember what it was like when they were allowed? Scores in the 70s every night. The combination of allowing a zone (something past NBA stars DID NOT face) and a physical game made it impossible to score. Do you guys prefer scores in the 60s and 70s? Or do you prefer a faster paced game in the 90s or 100s?
I feel like a lot of the NBAs problems would be solved if the league was cut down to something like 20 teams. Right now you could probably combine the Nets, Bobcats, Sixers, and TWolves into one NBA team, and they would probably be a fringe playoff team. The league has A LOT of talent now but I don’t think it has enough to support 30 teams. I also think the NBA should cut down the regular season to something like 70 games. More rest, less injuries, less of a time commitment needed from fans, players play harder, etc.
The NFL has a good thing going but basketball is way too different of a sport to compare the two.
Just to be a dick
I’ll point out that “[The] NBA does not actually represent the game as it should be played; again, rules are created that make high-flying beneficial” is a wildly subjective statement that you don’t bother to support.
Any time you use the word “should,” you have a good opportunity to question whether everyone agrees with you, and just what kind of evidence you have in your support. I feel like the NBA exhibits basketball exactly as it should be played. By the best talents who exist, and under the best coaching the owners can figure out.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 7, 2011 11:37 PM CST up reply actions
but the best talents aren't forced to follow the rules
Nobody who plays basketball can get away with those travels at a park. It’s absurd to say that the refs don’t see them. I’d love to see Wade, Lebron, Kobe play by (basically) the same rules that I was taught, and that are enforced in every open gym in America. That’s one thing baseball and football have on basketball
I disagree slightly
Even Wes Johnson gets a pass on travelling every so often so it’s leaguewide though it’s more likely to be called on a nobody (Luke Ridnour … cough cough) than a star.
Anybody heard how bad Beeze hurt his ankle?
We’re gonna have an awful short bench tomorrow night.
I have no idea what we're yelling about!
from zgoda
“Beasley says it’s time now to let his ankle heal. He said at least “a couple games.” It was swelling up after game."
The real problem with the NBA
is that the players have become bigger than the league. The best and worst thing that ever happened to the NBA is Michael Jordan. He was so good that he became larger than life and bigger than the league. He was the marketing superpower that allowed the NBA to became more popular than ever. Because of this, they completely changed and bent rules for Jordan and now for any players they deem as “superstars.” They have been trying to replace Jordan forever and it has reduced the appeal to the game. It is not a conincedence that only a handful of teams constantly win the NBA championship – there is no disparity in the league. These “superstars” have become so coddled and given such preferential treatment that it has gone to their heads. The egos are beyond out of control. LeBron and his “decision” will forever ruin this league unless something is drastically changed in the culture of the NBA. The future of the league is these types of players that don’t want to earn a championship the right way – they just want to collude with each other to make a few “super teams” so they can get their “deserved” ring. These players are coming across as superficial, self-centerd, egomaniacs and the NBA has helped reward and accentuate these traits in these players. Players like LeBron have forgotten how they have become as rich as they are – because of the fans! When these mega-stars basically contibnue to take a piss on fans like this because they feel they have the right to do what they want to do (“what do you want me to do”) without any regard for their own fans and teams, then there is no way this league will survive. They may as well lockout this year and just fold up the league if this continues at this pace. The non-popular destinations won’t even stand a chance to be even competitive (much less win a championship as it is now). Many teams can barely fill stands as it is. The NFL is better because there is no player,team, coach, or city etc. that is more important than the game. Disparity keeps the league popular. The NFL is the most popular and the most profitable sport in the U.S., yet instead of following the NFL’s method for success the NBA prefers to follow the path of all-star wrestling as theirs.
I hate to point out the obvious but Socialism STIFLES innovation
by OdinFromValhalla on Feb 7, 2011 10:45 PM CST reply actions
Yes, that's the stereotype.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 7, 2011 11:46 PM CST up reply actions
Alright
give me five specific examples of socialism stifling innovation.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 7, 2011 11:49 PM CST up reply actions
Har!
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 7, 2011 11:54 PM CST up reply actions
That's because
Their dictator is too busy directing 6-hour biopics (I feel using the plural is a safe estimate) starring himself as Elvis to let any important innovations out.
"We must always seek the truth in our opponents' error and the error in our own truth." - RN
I'll go easy on you.
Give me two examples of socialism stifling innovation.
Hell, give me one.
Or shut the fuck up and stop listening to conservatards.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 7, 2011 11:59 PM CST up reply actions
Oh you were serious?
Does socialism PROMOTE innovation?
That's not an answer. You're dodging.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:01 AM CST up reply actions
I don't see any innovations coming from North Korea
Or Cuba. Or anywhere else that is especially socialist. Are we supposed to list all the inventions they would have made but for socialism?
No.
You’re supposed to list all of the innovations that socialism has prevented.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:04 AM CST up reply actions
Ok you weren't serious
I wasn’t sure there for a second
I'll assume for the moment
that you’re slow and not brain-dead.
I was serious.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:07 AM CST up reply actions
It's not possible
To list innovations that never happened.
Socialist countries—No innovations.
Quasi-socialist countries—Plenty of innovations.
“Capitalist” societies—Don’t exist
So in what sense
is the statement “Socialism STIFLES innovation” a supportable claim? That’s exactly what OdinFromVAlhalla wrote. That’s exactly what I disputed.
You’re throwing a post hoc fallacy out there, but you’re not even trying to establish causality.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:14 AM CST up reply actions
I'll jump in here instead
Many technical innovations are expensive to achieve. Because of this, they are financed by those who stand to make a huge profit.
What I know most about is pharmaceutical innovations. There’s a reason our f’ed up health care has near constant innovations that are then borrowed by more frugal companies. Investment in research happens because of the money to be made on successful ventures.
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:19 AM CST up reply actions
Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond
He talks about this exact thing. I don’t remember the exact numbers by any means but he compares the number of diseases that have been cured in the West vs. the number of tropical diseases cured and how it is all about money.
the point in TB awareness
is trying to convince drug companies that the multidrug resistant TB will eventually come to the wealthy world. Unfortunately, even if they develop these drugs, they would have little incentive to give them away to the people that need them, especially if the tax rules change to “exit market” valuation for drug donations
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:48 AM CST up reply actions
It's easy
but the drug companies clearly don’t care.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:51 AM CST up reply actions
they are evil
… but “soulless” is the better word. They exist as a publically traded company that’s sole reason for existance is to make money. Along through the company are people who care (I know alot of engineers from St Jude and Medtronic) but as you get closer to where the big decisions are made, you get closer and closer to the sould vacuum.
Innovations happen here, but the distribution of those is reprehensible.
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:55 AM CST up reply actions
And that
is exactly the problem in unregulated capitalism.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:59 AM CST up reply actions
They exist to make money
which sounds somewhat like a template for evil, but in no way could they exist to lose money. And the cost to push a new compound from the discovery stage to an FDA approved drug is approaching a billion dollars. Add on top of that the fact that most drugs fail at some point during development (after significant investment), and you can appreciate that there absolutely has to be a big market for any drug to be considered.
No causality?
It seems extraordinarily clear that a disproportionately small number of innovations come from truly socialist countries. What else causes this? Weather?
There might be plenty of good reasons for socialism, and those reasons might explain why just about every country has adopted some form of it. But I always assumed that a decrease in innovation was just a cost of doing business for socialist countries.
Now you have a handy
ad hominem. But you still haven’t demonstrated causality. In order to demonstrate the truth of the notion that socialism causes a decrease in innovation, you’ll have to produce at least one (and ideally many) case(s) in which socialism has stifled innovation. So far, that hasn’t happened.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:24 AM CST up reply actions
????
That’s rather a high requirement. How would we control variables in an experiment that runs a society.
But I’ll play the game: the USSR (thank you Lysenko) decides that Lemarckism rather than Mendelian genetics is how traits are passed from one generation. While the rest of the world was experiencing the green revolution, food production behind the iron curtian was near stagnant.
With a free market, profit would have made this decision, and lemarckism would have died the same death in the eastern block that it did in the west.
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:33 AM CST up reply actions
Um
You’re talking about a difference in scientific perspective—not economic theory.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:36 AM CST up reply actions
the free market would make the decision
profit would support the science and the innovation. Without profit making decisions, politicians made the decision that >>prevented innovation<<
and I believe that was the point of this digression
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:39 AM CST up reply actions
Profitable science gets its way
there is nothing else that determines what happens in science. The free market (unfortunately) already makes the decisions.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:42 AM CST up reply actions
and I agree that free market harms science
… but you expressed the opinion that socialism did not.
To earn your moniker, you really need to be more cynical on both sides of the aisle
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:44 AM CST up reply actions
No
I was just speaking against the constant demonization of a simple economic system. And if I need to make adjustments, then in order for you to earn your moniker you need to live your full life in order to determine what the “mid” of your life will be.
Best.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:48 AM CST up reply actions
with an n=1
LMAO. Every year that goes by I’m making pretty big assumptions as to when the end will be.
= )
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:52 AM CST up reply actions
But you don't
know how cool I am.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 1:36 AM CST up reply actions
This is way too easy
Socialism eliminates much of the incentive to excel and take risks. When the State becomes your religion, everything is sacrificed at the altar of “the greater good”, meaning equally miserable.
The Soviet Union had a crippled economy thanks to Socialism which stifled innovation through central planning, bloated bureaucracy and eliminating incentives for taking risks and excelling. They also stifled innovations in art because all art must support the state.
North Korea, same applies. I have given MANY classified briefings on North Korea for the Army and there is no more “stifled country” than that.
If you think that socialism doesn’t stifle innovation, you are either grossly ignorant or a complete Socialist ideologue and beyond reasoning with.
Or perhaps you are drunk and just playing games.
by OdinFromValhalla on Feb 8, 2011 12:28 AM CST up reply actions
In what way
does socialism remove the urge to excel? Is it because you think people are primarily motivated by the possibility of material compensation? That’s sad.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:31 AM CST up reply actions
absolutely agreed that socialism doesn't remove the urge to excel
Those who argue supply side usually say that the production of ideas (how innovations reach the public) is done better with profit in mind than with other political motivations.
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:40 AM CST up reply actions
I choose to see the world as it is rather than how I wish it to be.
Being pragmatic is a good thing. Give it a shot.
by OdinFromValhalla on Feb 8, 2011 12:41 AM CST up reply actions
Evidence?
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:52 AM CST up reply actions
The last refuge
of those who have no evidence. Thanks for admitting your lack.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 1:30 AM CST up reply actions
Very true
In a socialist society, where “spread the wealth” reigns supreme, everyone gets an equal plot of land.
I’d like to see the NBA players spread their wealth around to the bench players.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
Exactly
Pecherov should get the same share as Kobe,
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 1:32 AM CST up reply actions
Jason 1 great example is cars
Look at the cars in America in 1950 and in East Germany or the Soviet Union in 1950. They look somewhat similar. Now look at the cars in America in 1985 and in the Eastern European countries in 1985. You will see a big difference. There was competition in America to produce great vehicles. There was no competition to build better vehicles in The Eastern European countries. Thus socialism prevented a ton of innovation because there was no competition.
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Feb 8, 2011 1:33 PM CST up reply actions
Or look at Cuba, where they still drive cars that were built in 1950
which, I suppose, takes a tremendous amount of innovation to keep them working in the absence of the manufacturer’s parts.
Or look at Sweden (which is often considered “socialist”), which has brought us some lovely Saabs and Volvos.
I actually think you brought up a good example, I’m just riffing on the overall silliness of the debate. The nature of discourse in today’s media has caused the word “socialism” lose any coherent or consistent meaning.
It’s pretty clear that centrally planned economies don’t work as well as economies with capitalist elements. But that doesn’t mean that markets should go completely unregulated, or that societies shouldn’t consider trade-offs between economic efficiency and equity. Cable news love black and white debates, but the world is full of gray.
by Madison Dan on Feb 8, 2011 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks Madison Dan
good points
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Feb 8, 2011 9:59 PM CST up reply actions
Cute.
Care to back anything? Or are you Glenn Beck?
You are a little soul carrying a corpse. --Epictetus
by Cynical Jason on Feb 8, 2011 12:03 AM CST up reply actions
medicinal innovations
The cost for approval is so prohibitive that it is only done with an eye to crazy future profits.
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 12:07 AM CST up reply actions
This
is why we should support more government funding towards basic and applied research funding in medicine.
As it currently stands, pharmaceutical companies develop drugs that have questionable additional pharmaceutical value (ie changing amino groups around on the periphery of the drug to extend a patent, developing pro-drugs that convert in your body to the EXACT same product they previously had a patent on Pristiq/Effexor), drugs that are aimed for high profit margins (3 major types of treatment for Erectile Dysfunction, a new push for a treatment for low female libido) or fairly menial combinations of existing treatments (Beyaz is a new birth control pill that combines a contraceptive WITH folic acid to prevent birth defects if you don’t use it correctly i guess) while ignoring potential developments and research in drugs that could improve the lives of a lot of people who don’t happen to have enough money to worry about whether they can get an erection. Also, direct to consumer advertising adds terribly little value to providing actual patient care.
Basic science research funded through the government promotes potential breakthroughs that can be applied to several areas of technology, it’s done through competitive grant processes so it’s not just throwing money out and seeing what happens and it’s shared with the public rather than becoming a single companies private domain.
Research should be a shared need in both the private and public domains, and some of the barriers to new drugs could be looked at to make the approval process more streamlined, but as it stands, as a medical professional, I’m not terribly impressed by the current state of private drug development.
It's not the initial research that's the problem
It’s getting products to market.
The costs involved in finally getting dabigatran(possibly replacing warfarin) to market are crazy, but it was profit that made it happen.
Initial research is trifling compared to the costs of developing the idea.
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 1:01 AM CST up reply actions
What I'm saying
is that the current state, the “idea” of current pharmaceutical development is terribly short sighted (we’re spending tons of money for drugs that already exist for all intents, we’re marketing the hell out of drugs where all we can say are that they aren’t worse than current, cheaper treatments, we’re using treatments to create new diseases) and that having some real innovations in terms of drug development would be welcome for both health care providers and for patients.
Drug development is inherently searching for a needle in a haystack (i’ve done basic biochem research on a chemotherapy adjunct) and finding actual treatments that provide better outcomes with a safe profile of side effects is really, really, really difficult.
It’s a balancing act, having strong forms of clinical research (like the RE-COVER trial with dabigatran, which looks like a pretty nice drug) and safety protocols helps to prevent things like Vioxx or Thalidomide from happening but also prevents us from getting things into the field quickly. It also requires honesty from the pharmaceutical companies to reveal information that isn’t favorable to their drugs.
hahahahahaha
oh
I thought “honest from the pharmaceutical companies” was a joke
by midlife crisis on Feb 8, 2011 1:19 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah
well, there’s some things that aren’t going to be fixed.
I agree here
A Manhattan Project style operation from our government to cure Cancer or AIDS would be a good idea IMHO.
by OdinFromValhalla on Feb 8, 2011 1:05 AM CST up reply actions
The NBA is successful
and as long it continues to make a profit for the large market teams and provide revenue to small market teams there’s not a reason to change. The biggest problem for the NBA is extremely low barrier to entry for a competitive league. Isiah Thomas was well on his way to creating a competitive league for $10 million. That’s a ridiculously low threshold. If NFL like profits existed in basketball the networks would have already created a league of their own.
As for the NFL their profit projections have outgrown their customer’s ability to pay . They built a lot of stadiums during one of the biggest booms in the US economy fueled via consumer debt. Those NFL teams are counting on increasing revenue for 30 years and when it doesn’t come to pass everyone will look back and wonder what went wrong. It should be pretty obvious to everyone the billion dollar stadiums weren’t a good idea.
This is why I loved the 7 seconds or less Suns
They innovated on a team level and played interesting, exciting basketball. If they had won a championship perhaps the idea would have spread.
Interesting points, SnP.
If i were commissioner for a year:
- reduce the number of games in the season to ~40.
- eliminate zone defense penalties
- widen the lane and the court
- get serious about tracking foul calls by ref, computerize the system as MLB has and take the “star” call out of the game
The first change makes each game mean much more, the other three focus the game on a team that plays together not a superstar.
And finally, a new CBA that gives the team that drafts a player a larger advantage in re-signing them, and create a true developmental league with farm teams assigned to pro teams and run by them ala MLB, so that teams can excel in developing talent and pay those players a decent minimum wage (~100K) so they don’t just jump to Europe.
Both of these are to give smart small market franchises a chance to compete for titles.
Regarding the refs
I like your idea of tracking the refs closer to help minimize the star calls. I would aslo like to see four refs – one in each quadrant of the court. They could rotate each quarter. The game has gotten much faster and the refs often miss many calls or make the wrong calls because it is impossible to see all the action with three refs. They have at least started conferring with each other more and looking to replay to get more calls right which is a step in the right direction.
by killerhoopage on Feb 7, 2011 11:31 PM CST up reply actions
Development league ala MLB is necessary
It allows you to take those raw guys (Thabeet, Flynn, Favors) and give them a couple of years against excellent competition while they are working on specific skills rather than trying to hold down a job that they have the body for, but don’t yet have the corresponding skills.
Hey--
I’m sure you guys are enjoying Angela’s Nutcracker Christmas over here, but I just wanted you to know that Pam and Karen are having a much more fun Margarita and Karaoke Christmas Party in the Break Room.
Kevin Love is not the problem.
David Stern sucks.
There may have been a time when he was a worthwhile commish, but it was before my time as a basketball fan.
Also, pretty lame game wrap. Wolves win one by blowing out a legit playoff team on the road and we get some random comparison of the NBA and NFL.
A thought
I read the Simmons book of basketball recently, which I found fascinating. One of his points (and who knows if its true) is that AAU and the basketball camps today really homogenize the talent that comes into the league so that nobody enters the league with goofy quirks anymore, that is if they have talent. The way they’re prepped, the only way they can truly be transcendent anymore is to be an athletic freak.
But, since this is here:
Guaranteed contracts. Huge difference. Their absence allows the NFL to make problem guys disappear fairly easily. No way a turd like Eddy Curry would be hanging around forever stealing money and taking up space. Streamlines the product and keeps the best people playing.
NFL has the same guarantees as the NBA
The difference is in what teams choose to give players. JaMarcus Russell was still owed $3 million from the $39 he was guaranteed in his rookie contract from the Raiders. In both the NFL and the NBA, all of the contract, none of the contract, or somewhere in between can be guaranteed.
Not really
There are exactly zero fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL. Because of this, there is never a point where a player hangs on a team (like the previously mentioned Curry), simply because it is not cost effective to cut the player. No matter how much of their contract is guaranteed, teams will always be able to save money by cutting the player.
Please don't use the word contract
To describe the employment arrangements that the NFL has with its players. A contract is an agreement enforceable against each party. Only the players are bound by the employment arrangement in the NFL.
They say it's always darkest just before dawn and man, was it dark last year. Come to think of it, I'm not needing my sunglasses this year, either.
by SBG on Feb 8, 2011 8:58 AM CST up reply actions
Incorrect
Sorry. Albert Haynesworth received a 41 million dollar guarantee. JaMarcus Russell 39 million. Sam Bradford 50 million. Teams can guarantee as much or as little as they want in a contract.
What?
Marxist? Conservatives? Oh my, doesn’t anyone realize that Marxist is off to the left of conservatism, far to the left.
To the greater point, yes, the NFL realizes its the game while the NBA pushes extraneous hype (garbage). But the NFL is not alone. The NHL doesn’t have t-shirt throws and record ripping either.
Breaking down cognitive dissonance and group think since gasoline was cheap.
not sure
if it has as much to do with evolving as it might have to do with something else.
I like what you said about how the two sports differ in their advertising and everything, the NFL knows what they have and they don’t try to make you think different. The NBA wants to try and make you believe the NBA is _______. There may be a few rule changes that bring in some new fans and change things up a bit, but maybe the NBA should just learn from the other sports leagues.
As it is right now, the NBA has no shot of being what the NFL is currently imo. However if they maybe change some rules on fouling so it’s a little more appealing or something like that they can get a certain fan base and be happy with them. The NHL changed their OT rules and icing rules and they got some new fans and I think they’re content with that. The NHL knows they have this group of loyal fans that will probably never leave and they also know they’ll never compete for top sport in America ever again and I think they’re fine with that. If the NBA can make sure they keep the fans that love the game for what it is and maybe spice it up a little bit for the casual fans, they can still have a huge fan base that will be loyal until the end.
They don’t need to evolve much imo. MLB changes little rules every now and then, but really, it’s been the same game played with the same rules for the past 100+ years. Sure there’s no more spitballs and they added more games, but the game itself is the same. They got rid of steroids and went on strike and they took a huge hit in popularity, but the loyal fans stuck with it and the league didn’t change anything… and everyone that was on the fringe has basically come back to the sport. This is arguably the most boring sport to watch and yet they don’t really change rules to add excitement and they can still be popular by simply keeping true to what makes the game great. Now I basically know nothing about soccer, but what little I do know, it seems like they’ve never changed the rules and it’s still the most popular sport in the world even though I consider it painfully boring to watch.
Basically, the NBA needs to realize who and what they are and just keep it that way and be happy… kinda what you were saying with the NFL network.
REPORTER: What do you think is happening to the team?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: The ship be sinking.
REPORTER: How far can it sink?
MICHAEL RAY RICHARDSON: Sky's the limit.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel
You really can tune in during the final 2 minutes and see all you need to know.
I like basketball and like to watch games occasionally, but it’s hard for me to care about any individual play when I’ve seen this scenario play out over and over again. Not sure if anything can be done about it but I wish basketball was more watchable to casual fans.
Imagine how much more interesting each game would be...
if there were no “Defensive 3 Seconds” rule. It’s a better game now than in the 90’s, when it was EXTREMELY 1-on-1/isolation-based basketball, since they removed “Illegal Defense.” Why not take it one step further and allow defenses to use whatever schemes they’d like, as every other level of basketball does it?
I think the shooting in the NBA is vastly superior to college ball, so there wouldn’t be as much clogging the lane as might be expected. But, we’d see a lot of teams trying different strategies to contain individual superstars and team play would be required. Also, with certain schemes, crazy effort can trump discipline and experience. It might act as an equalizer of sorts, but in a good way. There is nothing wrong with energy and athleticism on defense being rewarded—I bet Corey Brewer would like looser defensive rules.
Not to defend David Stern, but...
The Association was in a heap of hurt when he took over. If you want to see a badly led league, look at hockey. (Perhaps Bettman was Stern’s Rambis.) The NBA was the first league with a salary cap at all. Baseball still doesn’t have one and needs one.
What would help:
1. Take away rules people can’t understand. NFL has kooky rules that need explaining, but that game affords time to explain them. Illegal defense, hand-checking, the “no charging” circle, zone-not a zone. Let’s start over and see what happens.
2. Stop the emphasis on “and ones.” Fouls should be the exception, not the rule. It shouldn’t shock us when Kobe scores and doesn’t get fouled. If they’re hard, sure. If the back of Darko’s hand brushes his elbow, no.
3. The problem with guaranteed contracts is that they count against the cap, not that they exist. Let team pay off the player then cut him and take him off the cap. Then bad signings hurt management but not necessarily the team. In exchange, the players shorten the maximum length of contract by a year.
4. No best-of-seven series until the Finals. Playoffs bog down in the middle, and it’s warm outside. It’ll never be the NCAA, but we don’t need to live through four runs of “Roots” every spring.
5. One franchise player per team. Yeah, a guy who works for IBM can work wherever he wants, but that’s not sports. The franchise player is paid at a significant premium to the max for other players. If he still wants out, he can, but at 50% of the franchise player contract. He has to be really selfless, it’s not just LeBron’s “sacrifice.”
6. Move the Hornets back to Charlotte. Contract the Bobcats and Grizzlies. Move the Kings to Seattle.
7. Fix the officiating. Let every team pick one referee to not call their games, sort of like vetting a jury. Transparency.
8. The lottery was put in place to keep teams from tanking. They still tank. For the first pick, every team gets one ping-pong ball apiece except for teams who’ve won in the last five lotteries. From 2nd pick on, it’s reverse order of finish (as currently for 4th pick onward).
9. Bigger court. Guys will still go to the corners, so then they’re spread out. Larger court means fewer floor seats, but more front-row seats.
Brilliant!!!!
3. The problem with guaranteed contracts is that they count against the cap, not that they exist. Let team pay off the player then cut him and take him off the cap. Then bad signings hurt management but not necessarily the team. In exchange, the players shorten the maximum length of contract by a year.
This would help tremendously. It could single handedly have fixed the highschool problem.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Create-a-Caption: Jeff Pendergraph scares his Pacers teammates
- James Harden is a cake now
- Mike Miller loses shoe, plays two possessions without it, Pacers don’t score (VIDEO)
- Larry Bird calls his Indiana Pacers ‘soft’ following the team’s physical Game 5 loss to Miami
- Dexter Pittman’s elbow to Lance Stephenson’s throat is just one of three nasty hits in Miami/Indiana’s Game 5 (VIDEO)
