NBA Playoffs thread

[sandiego17]

In regards to your fist paragraph, I've read a lot of that, he's insane, neurotic and one of the worst bosses anyone can have. I don't think anyone disagrees that he's a world class POS, other than Donald himself. Not arguing that point. I also agree the NBA would be better of without Sterling.

I do think if the NBA attempts to use the argument about devaluing the brand, Sterling can counter that rather easily. His $12.5MM initial investment is worth more than a billion, tough to argue he has cost the league anything. I know you made the statement in jest "poor guy..." but that's one of the issues that bothers me about this whole thing. I've seen it (the return) used as a justification or excuse to accept a forced sell, but that's not a decision for anyone else to make and it never should be.

[Coachmarkos]

Color me crazy then!

Every basketball game just looks like every other basketball game. You can go to the bathroom and miss 10 baskets, but so what? There is going to be a whole bunch more! Too much scoring is the same thing as not enough scoring. Baskets are cheap, so who gives a shit? The game doesn't even really start until the end, when it becomes a marathon of fouls, free throws, and time outs. Why the fuck do they need so damned many time outs anyway? Don't they cover anything at practice? I've always joked that if I only have two minutes to live, I want it to be the last two minutes of a basketball game. And the preferred strategy for getting back into a game at the end is to deliberately break the rules and commit fouls. I won't ever be sold on basketball, it ranks higher than only NASCAR on my list.

Saying every basketball game looks like every other basketball game is like saying every football game looks like every other football game. It's not true, and very simplistic.

At least basketball has a fair, and understandable overtime.

Fouling isn't breaking the rules... it's part of the rules. You are allowed to foul this many times, and then you are disqualified. The reward for getting fouled is a trip to the free throw line (more or less). It's part of the rules of the game.

It's not the same as football. Just different.

The timeouts are ridiculous, and I know there has been discussion of change there. With television coverage, coaches are saving all their timeouts, because of the intermittent media timeouts, and then at the end of the game, each team has a significant number left. I agree those should be cut down.

Disagree that too much scoring is a bad thing. I've coached boys and girls basketball for going on 20 years...the longest nights ever are the games where no one can score it, and both teams end up in the 30's or 40's. A game that is played in the 60's or even 70's (at HS level) is much more fun to watch... not even close.

[Guest]

Saying every basketball game looks like every other basketball game is like saying every football game looks like every other football game. It's not true, and very simplistic.

At least basketball has a fair, and understandable overtime.

Fouling isn't breaking the rules... it's part of the rules. You are allowed to foul this many times, and then you are disqualified. The reward for getting fouled is a trip to the free throw line (more or less). It's part of the rules of the game.

It's not the same as football. Just different.

The timeouts are ridiculous, and I know there has been discussion of change there. With television coverage, coaches are saving all their timeouts, because of the intermittent media timeouts, and then at the end of the game, each team has a significant number left. I agree those should be cut down.

Disagree that too much scoring is a bad thing. I've coached boys and girls basketball for going on 20 years...the longest nights ever are the games where no one can score it, and both teams end up in the 30's or 40's. A game that is played in the 60's or even 70's (at HS level) is much more fun to watch... not even close.

Basketball (to me) is so repetitive that I can't even watch it. I don't enjoy it at all.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

In regards to your fist paragraph, I've read a lot of that, he's insane, neurotic and one of the worst bosses anyone can have. I don't think anyone disagrees that he's a world class POS, other than Donald himself. Not arguing that point. I also agree the NBA would be better of without Sterling.

I do think if the NBA attempts to use the argument about devaluing the brand, Sterling can counter that rather easily. His $12.5MM initial investment is worth more than a billion, tough to argue he has cost the league anything. I know you made the statement in jest "poor guy..." but that's one of the issues that bothers me about this whole thing. I've seen it (the return) used as a justification or excuse to accept a forced sell, but that's not a decision for anyone else to make and it never should be.

The NBA will win on basis of hostile work environment labor issue. It will also have a good case on setting rules of behavior on voluntary association grounds. Devaluation of brand case isn't retro argument. Public consciousness on most of that was nil. Issue is what is going to happen going forward when players and coaches refuse to play, fans refuse to attend, teams boycott games vs LA, advertisers pull out (many already have), etc.

At this point Sterling is only doing this to get better terms. Basically 'pay me to go away' dollars on top of sale price.

This really is not a high-minded property rights case. This is crass business that'll be ginned up for dollars. I understand your concern, but thats not what this is really about. On a sidenote, comments by people about what the basis for this ought to be are coming from a lot of people that don't really know the issues but just want the guy gone. I don't pay much attention to them.

[oneinchpunch]

Chicago Tribune:

Defending Donald Sterling's right to be a racist

By Lewis Maltby

It's hard to feel sympathy for Donald Sterling. A superannuated billionaire with a sketchy personal life, he seems to have bypassed the civil rights movement (and is saddled with a history of discriminating against minorities in his real estate ventures to boot). No right-thinking person approves of his odious racist comments. Now, the 80-year old owner of the Los Angeles Clippers has been banned by the National Basketball Association over his remarks; he might be forced to sell the team he has owned since 1981 if the league determines that's in the best interest of the game.

Sure, he's a creep, but nonetheless Sterling is getting a raw deal from the NBA.

Let's go to the tape: As the Clippers' owner, Sterling has done nothing illegal. None of his African-American players or employees has accused him of discriminating against them or making racist comments to them or in their presence. True enough, former Clippers general manager Elgin Baylor sued Sterling for wrongful termination and discrimination based on age and race — and lost in a jury trial. So, legally, Sterling posts a 1-0 record.

But he has already been tried and convicted of racism by the media. Reacting to public disgust, the NBA moved swiftly to punish him without regard for due process. In America, even murder suspects are entitled to a fair trial, and Sterling deserved one too. But it's unclear whether he got any chance to defend himself before the NBA investigators. If the league forces him to sell the Clippers, it will amount to an extrajudicial taking of private property (though the hundreds of millions he's likely to walk away with will salve his pain somewhat.)

This is not the first time we've seen a business leader abruptly fired because of opinions expressed outside of the office. Brendan Eich was recently forced out as the CEO of Mozilla after it came to light he had made a small personal financial contribution to California's anti-gay marriage campaign nearly six years ago. Eich didn't advocate for Proposition 8 at work, but in Silicon Valley, where left-leaning causes flow as freely as stock options, Eich's conservative stance was considered anathema. Though he apologized for "causing pain," he was abruptly jettisoned by Mozilla's board. Many observers, including gay rights activist Andrew Sullivan, recognized the incident as a case of out-of-control political correctness.

The ugliness of Sterling's comments pushes him far into the hold-your-nose zone. But no matter how socially repellent, holding unpopular opinions is not illegal. Everybody enjoys the right to be wrong, stupid or just plain vile.

What's really troubling is the murky origins of this controversy. Few seem to care that V. Stiviano, Sterling's former lady friend, is not a whistleblower: Her motive appears to be revenge, not racial justice. Stiviano is being sued by Sterling's estranged wife over the millions of dollars worth of lavish gifts he showered upon her during their relationship. I suspect Stiviano leaked the tapes to humiliate him or gain legal advantage. ("Desperate Housewives" has nothing on this bunch.)

What should be done about Sterling? Let the players and fans decide. If Clippers players refuse to play for him, that's their right and more power to them. If they want to quit and play for another franchise, then they should be allowed to. And if fans decide to boycott the Clippers and Sterling goes broke, it serves him right. His words should certainly have real-world consequences.

But firing someone because their views are beyond the pale places everyone's freedom of speech in jeopardy. And it's usually not billionaires or Internet bigwigs who suffer. Lynne Gobbell's Alabama boss noticed a "Kerry for President" bumper sticker on her car and ordered her to remove it; she refused and got canned. In West Virginia, Glenn Hillier was fired as a graphic designer after he heckled President George W. Bush about the Iraq war at a rally. And Nate Fulmer was booted from his accounting job for making critical comments about organized religion on his blog that his South Carolina employer disapproved of.

Defending our constitutional rights does not come with an a la carte option. That's why the American Civil Liberties Union defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie in 1978. Even racists like Sterling shouldn't lose their jobs for expressing their personal opinions, no matter how crude. As President Barack Obama remarked, "When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything. You just let them talk." And wait for them to fade away.

Lewis Maltby is president of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J., and former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Task Force on Civil Liberties in the Workplace.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

The 'backlash' is predictable.

[sandiego17]

The NBA will win on basis of hostile work environment labor issue. It will also have a good case on setting rules of behavior on voluntary association grounds. Devaluation of brand case isn't retro argument. Public consciousness on most of that was nil. Issue is what is going to happen going forward when players and coaches refuse to play, fans refuse to attend, teams boycott games vs LA, advertisers pull out (many already have), etc.

At this point Sterling is only doing this to get better terms. Basically 'pay me to go away' dollars on top of sale price.

This really is not a high-minded property rights case. This is crass business that'll be ginned up for dollars. I understand your concern, but thats not what this is really about. On a sidenote, comments by people about what the basis for this ought to be are coming from a lot of people that don't really know the issues but just want the guy gone. I don't pay much attention to them.

Hostile work environment has to be proven and that's far from a given (reading the article, Sterling prevailed against Baylor, didn't realize that.) IMO, if the NBA wins, it would have to based on its constitution or whatever they want to call it that he signed/agreed to and breached. Sterlings motives in fighting this are not a factor, self serving or not, I don't think the NBA (or anybody else) should be able to force someone to divest there property. Now if he breached an agreement he's a party to, that's another matter, but that's yet to be determined. If he did, I don't think the recording is the cause of the breach and it wasn't until the recording was made public that the NBA acted. I think its a fair question. Why now? A leaked recording?

In regards to the return on investment basis for sale sidenote, the reason to pay attention to them is that we should never want people to accept that line of thinking as legitimate. That needs to be rebutted forcefully. I think generally, or at least in principal, we agree here.

[sandiego17]

The 'backlash' is predictable.

Which? I think both the reaction to the tape and the reaction to the NBA are both fairly predictable.

[Coachmarkos]

I don't know who wins...but Sterling will fight this as long as he's alive, I'm sure.

Went 2-0 last night. Tonight...staying with my trend so far...picking both home teams. I'm 2-2 in the second round.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Hostile work environment has to be proven and that's far from a given (reading the article, Sterling prevailed against Baylor, didn't realize that.) IMO, if the NBA wins, it would have to based on its constitution or whatever they want to call it that he signed/agreed to and breached. Sterlings motives in fighting this are not a factor, self serving or not, I don't think the NBA (or anybody else) should be able to force someone to divest there property. Now if he breached an agreement he's a party to, that's another matter, but that's yet to be determined. If he did, I don't think the recording is the cause of the breach and it wasn't until the recording was made public that the NBA acted. I think its a fair question. Why now? A leaked recording?

In regards to the return on investment basis for sale sidenote, the reason to pay attention to them is that we should never want people to accept that line of thinking as legitimate. That needs to be rebutted forcefully. I think generally, or at least in principal, we agree here.

Of course he prevailed against Baylor. Baylor had no case. It was going to be close to impossible to prove racial discrimination when Sterling had employed him as a GM for 22 years in which he presided over a .344 winning percentage. The level of incompetence he showed as a GM should have been more than enough to get anyone else fired multiple times.

Yes, hostile work environment has to be proven. And there is no question that it will be proven. The witness list will be lengthy and the testimony will make the things we already know seem completely innocent in contrast.

You keep using the word "force." I doubt that is how it will play out. He will be "encouraged" and that encouragement will involve cash. The encouragement has already started by isolating him. It will continue as he begins to realize more clearly how his presence is devaluing his asset. Sterling's motives in fighting it are only presented to demonstrate that the end-game will be financial, not judicial.

The "why now?" question is a fair question more broadly, but I think this amounts to a "straw that broke the camel's back" episode. I suspect that there has been a desire to evict Sterling for years but no real mechanism to do so.

Again, property rights are a very important principle to me, just as free speech is important to me. But these rights are not absolute, particularly within the context of a society. John Rocker is free to be stupid and he's free to speak his mind about his stupidity. But the rights to respond, sanction and isolate are also available to broader society.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Which? I think both the reaction to the tape and the reaction to the NBA are both fairly predictable.

Yes, and so is the second round of response now that Sterling's been sanctioned.

[sandiego17]

Yes, and so is the second round of response now that Sterling's been sanctioned.

Yup. I did say both were predictable.