No problem, says Stern

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32

User avatar

All Star
Posts: 3040
» Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:59 am
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:10 am
David Stern wrote:There was no proposal to change it. Our teams are satisfied with the enforcement and generally felt that any other enforcement would have been quite questionable given the past enforcement.

So, basically, their reason for not changing this disgusting rule is because it's screwed other teams in the past... so it would be unfair to not keep screwing others in the same fashion?

Makes perfect sense.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 1266
» Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:58 am
32 wrote:
David Stern wrote:There was no proposal to change it. Our teams are satisfied with the enforcement and generally felt that any other enforcement would have been quite questionable given the past enforcement.

So, basically, their reason for not changing this disgusting rule is because it's screwed other teams in the past... so it would be unfair to not keep screwing others in the same fashion?

Makes perfect sense.


It's like not putting up a STOP sign at and intersection because people have been run over in the past and it would be unfair to them if more people didn't get run over.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21969
» Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:32 pm
Shouldn't be surprising. Stern looks somewhat like a Tyrant. There was bound to be some complaints from owners but Stern won't admit to it
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:50 pm
Thunder wrote:
32 wrote:
David Stern wrote:There was no proposal to change it. Our teams are satisfied with the enforcement and generally felt that any other enforcement would have been quite questionable given the past enforcement.

So, basically, their reason for not changing this disgusting rule is because it's screwed other teams in the past... so it would be unfair to not keep screwing others in the same fashion?

Makes perfect sense.


It's like not putting up a STOP sign at and intersection because people have been run over in the past and it would be unfair to them if more people didn't get run over.

Thats exactly right.

Should we quit pursuing a cure for cancer because it "wouldn't be fair" to those who've already suffered due to it...?

... don't answer that, David Stern. :roll:
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:37 am
migya wrote:Shouldn't be surprising. Stern looks somewhat like a Tyrant.


Yep... that's pretty much what have been happening the last few years. Stern did a great job before, but lately the rules (and reasonings for those rules) are just ridiculous at times.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21969
» Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:05 am
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Shouldn't be surprising. Stern looks somewhat like a Tyrant.


Yep... that's pretty much what have been happening the last few years. Stern did a great job before, but lately the rules (and reasonings for those rules) are just ridiculous at times.



Just catering to the rich owners! Corporate bullshiit
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Tue Jun 12, 2007 1:58 pm
migya wrote:
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Shouldn't be surprising. Stern looks somewhat like a Tyrant.


Yep... that's pretty much what have been happening the last few years. Stern did a great job before, but lately the rules (and reasonings for those rules) are just ridiculous at times.



Just catering to the rich owners! Corporate bullshiit

How do you figure?

What bennefits one owner screws another. Do you think the owner of the Phoenix Suns was happy with the suspensions...?
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21969
» Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:24 am
32 wrote:
migya wrote:
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:Shouldn't be surprising. Stern looks somewhat like a Tyrant.


Yep... that's pretty much what have been happening the last few years. Stern did a great job before, but lately the rules (and reasonings for those rules) are just ridiculous at times.



Just catering to the rich owners! Corporate bullshiit

How do you figure?

What bennefits one owner screws another. Do you think the owner of the Phoenix Suns was happy with the suspensions...?



What Stern is doing (eg. Dress codes) favours the owners and the hierachy as it is geared to make them money and suit their styles
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Wed Jun 13, 2007 5:49 am
migya wrote:What Stern is doing (eg. Dress codes) favours the owners and the hierachy as it is geared to make them money and suit their styles


I don't think the dress code affects the owners in any way. I mean, just look at some owners like Cuban... it's pretty clear the dress code doens't matter to them. A few may like it, but not because they'll get any revenue from the rule.

I think the idea is to attract more casual fans from the corporate america, and those fans can identify more with the league if the players are forced to look like them... or something like that. In other words, Stern is trying to sell the image he has of the league to the fans he has in mind.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21969
» Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:27 pm
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:What Stern is doing (eg. Dress codes) favours the owners and the hierachy as it is geared to make them money and suit their styles


I don't think the dress code affects the owners in any way. I mean, just look at some owners like Cuban... it's pretty clear the dress code doens't matter to them. A few may like it, but not because they'll get any revenue from the rule.

I think the idea is to attract more casual fans from the corporate america, and those fans can identify more with the league if the players are forced to look like them... or something like that. In other words, Stern is trying to sell the image he has of the league to the fans he has in mind.



And that means more money for the nba and team owners :wink:
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:38 am
migya wrote:And that means more money for the nba and team owners :wink:


Well, yeah, they could raise the tickets... but I doubt that's the main aim of the rule. Just a side effect.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests