Spurs

[Big Nick Dudley]

The Spurs should fight this as hard as they can. It's ridiculous. Pop is there to win, not make sure David and the other owners are constantly happy, especially when David and those other owners wish, daily, that the Spurs would just disappear. I really hate the NBA. Love basketball, but hate the NBA... and ESPN.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Just more evidence that Stern is the worst commissioner of any sport. Retire already. You're destroying a once great league.

 

[Slyfox696]

Just more evidence that Stern is the worst commissioner of any sport. Retire already. You're destroying a once great league.

You mean the same league he created? Don't kid yourself, the NBA was hardly a great league when Stern took over. The NBA is far more popular today than it was at any point before Stern was made commissioner.

 

[shattered dreams]

You mean the same league he created? Don't kid yourself, the NBA was hardly a great league when Stern took over. The NBA is far more popular today than it was at any point before Stern was made commissioner.

It also seems to be less popular compared to 5-10 years ago, which is what people are alluding to.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

You mean the same league he created? Don't kid yourself, the NBA was hardly a great league when Stern took over. The NBA is far more popular today than it was at any point before Stern was made commissioner.

You're right. But to say most anyone decently qualified for the job couldn't accomplish making a sport that just acquired probably the greatest player to ever live in Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwan, Patrick Ewing, and already had such players as Julius Erving, Magic Johnson, (who conveniently had one of the greatest rivalries every with) Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc popular is laughable. But what has he done since? He rode those such amazing players as long as he could until expansions and no age restrictions turned the league into a watered down joke. Now we have 14 year olds who are fast but can't shoot worth a shit and know absolutely nothing about fundamentals of the playing the game. And few of them care to because they'll still get their paychecks and that's all they care about nowadays.

And who's supposed to be the savior of all this? A manboy who knows nothing about the spirit of competition because he's been handed everything his whole life because of a superior natural ability and athleticism (notice I didn't say talent). And even he's so flawed he had to run and hide behind other superstars because he didn't have the moxy or self respect to earn it on his own.

Give me a break. And don't even get me started on the whole Tim Donaghy scandal, the 2002 Western Conference Finals, 2006 NBA Finals, or any other shady referee situations that have come up.

David Stern has turned this league into a shell of itself due to severe lack of integrity. Popularity and credibility are 2 very different things.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

He has been solid over his entire tenure, but he has made some very unpopular decisions, particularly in the last decade, and throughout his tenure he has shunned small market teams, but he is no Gary Bettmann.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Stern has gone full heel here. Smart move. Takes the attention off of Pops and the Spurs. CM Punk could learn a lesson here.

 

[Slyfox696]

It also seems to be less popular compared to 5-10 years ago, which is what people are alluding to.

Ratings don't support that allusion, however.

The latest evidence that fans are not turned off when there's a work stoppage in pro sports: The NBA is finishing its lockout-shortened season with banner TV ratings.

ABC's games are averaging 3.3% of U.S. TV households, up 10% from last year. ESPN, despite a scrambled schedule that put NBA games in time slots where they hadn't previously aired, is averaging 1.3%. That's even with last year, when ESPN's NBA games got their best ratings since the network got NBA rights in 2002.

TNT's games are averaging 1.7%. That's up only slightly from last year, when NBA got strong ratings partly from the buzz about LeBron James joining the Miami Heat. But TNT is on track for its most-watched NBA games ever in part because of continuing interest in the Heat -- its four highest-rated games, outside Christmas Day, involved that team.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...ue-tv-wont-tip-nfl-draft-picks/1#.ULpQgYZBpLl

The NBA is experiencing its strongest TV viewership since the Michael Jordan era, with local ratings up 19 percent and four teams more than doubling last year’s local ratings.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/02/27/Media/NBA-RSNs.aspx

Game 1 of the Miami Heat-Oklahoma City Thunder series drew an 11.8 overnight Nielsen rating on ABC Tuesday night, the network’s highest overnight for the opening game of a Finals series since it acquired NBA rights prior to the 2002-03 season, SportsBusiness Daily reports.

While last year’s NBA ratings success was largely attributed to the formation of Miami’s Big Three stirring up interest in the league, the 11.8 for Tuesday’s game marks a 10 percent jump from a 10.7 overnight for the Mavericks-Heat opener last year. While the Thunder offer their own compelling storylines, the novelty around the Heat apparently hasn't worn off.

It’s also the best overnight for the opening game of an NBA Finals series since NBC earned a 12.9 for Lakers-Nets in '02.

Tuesday's Game 1 rating follows viewership for the Heat-Celtics East finals that ESPN trumpeted as its highest-rated and most-viewed ever. Game 7 of that series earned an 8.9 cable rating (which translates into a 7.7 national rating), the highest-ever for an NBA game on cable television.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...r-nba-finals-abc-overnight-television-ratings

You're right. But to say most anyone decently qualified for the job couldn't accomplish making a sport that just acquired probably the greatest player to ever live in Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwan, Patrick Ewing, and already had such players as Julius Erving, Magic Johnson, (who conveniently had one of the greatest rivalries every with) Larry Bird, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, etc popular is laughable.

No, what's laughable is how David Stern became commissioner the exact same year Jordan and Olajuwan came into the league, and yet you deny him credit for marketing those guys correctly. What's laughable is how the NBA DID have Chamberlain and Johnson and Bird and Erving and Kareem, and it wasn't until Stern became commissioner that the NBA took off, and yet you give him no credit for that either.

So, just to clarify your argument...he inherited guys who were great players but weren't making the NBA famous and was made commissioner when many of the greatest players you mentioned got drafted, and yet you claim he had nothing to do with its success, at least nothing more than any other "decently qualified" person couldn't do? That's just ridiculous.

But what has he done since?

Maintain the NBA at high levels of interest? Successfully market the game around the world? Expand the game of basketball all across Europe and into Asia? Capture the young male audience, which is an advertiser's wet dream?

Exactly what more do you expect of the man besides expand the business and make the people he works for a lot of money?

He rode those such amazing players as long as he could until expansions and no age restrictions turned the league into a watered down joke.

That must be why interest in the NBA is as high as it's been in a long time, right?

Oh, and read up on Spencer Haywood and Darryl Dawkins.

Now we have 14 year olds who are fast but can't shoot worth a shit and know absolutely nothing about fundamentals of the playing the game.

Yeah, and guys like Kevin Durant and LeBron James who will go down as two of the greatest players in basketball history, despite sharing a grand total of 1 year of college between them.

And few of them care to because they'll still get their paychecks and that's all they care about nowadays.

Bullshit. You cannot be a professional athlete and not love what you do. Some may care more than others, but the idea pro athletes don't care about their profession is nonsense.

And who's supposed to be the savior of all this? A manboy who knows nothing about the spirit of competition because he's been handed everything his whole life because of a superior natural ability and athleticism (notice I didn't say talent). And even he's so flawed he had to run and hide behind other superstars because he didn't have the moxy or self respect to earn it on his own.

Yeah, because it's not like LeBron James took a team to the NBA Finals that the very next year set an NBA record for futility.

And don't even get me started on the whole Tim Donaghy scandal, the 2002 Western Conference Finals, 2006 NBA Finals, or any other shady referee situations that have come up.

Considering your lack of objectivity thus far, no problem.

David Stern has turned this league into a shell of itself due to severe lack of integrity.

A shell of itself that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, which sees great ratings and is incredibly attractive to advertisers. Yes, how awful of the commissioner.

Popularity and credibility are 2 very different things.

The NBA is incredibly credible. That's why the best players around the world come to play in the NBA. You do realize that David Stern doesn't coach the teams, right? You do realize that David Stern WANTS to raise the requirement for being drafted and is being blocked by the player's association from doing so, right?

What exactly are you wanting him to do?

 

[shattered dreams]

Since the Jordan era, since 2002, what exactly about those persistent qualifiers doesn't agree with what I said? What happened from 2003 to 2010? How has attendance been? Why did the owners choose lockout if business was so great for them?

 

[Slyfox696]

Since the Jordan era, since 2002, what exactly about those persistent qualifiers doesn't agree with what I said? What happened from 2003 to 2010?

Umm...huh? 2003-2010 would all be considered since 2002 and since the Jordan era.

 

[Slyfox696]

How has attendance been? Why did the owners choose lockout if business was so great for them?

Since you edited your original post since I responded to it (that means I responded to it AFTER you posted it...just trying to help you with the definition of the word since ), I'll address this as well.

I cannot find league attendance by year, so you'll have to do that research. But I did find a wonderful source to answer your insinuation business hasn't been good, which is why the owners chose a lockout.

NBA commissioner David Stern estimates revenue will be a record $5 billion in the current season, an increase of about 20 percent from the league's last full season in 2010-11.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8629046/david-stern-estimates-nba-revenue-20-percent-5-billion

So, the answer to your question is probably "greed". Doesn't change the fact the NBA is doing well.

 

[gd]

Yeah, Stern may have made a bad decision here, but the NBA has become exponentially more popular since he took over and the league is in as good a shape now as it's ever been. Don't argue with Sly, guys. Won't end well for you

 

[shattered dreams]

Revenue doesn't include expenses. If it isn't going up every year then you have a large problem since you won't be able to keep up with inflation. I didn't follow it that closely but I think one of the reasons stated for the lockout was that a majority of teams were supposedly losing money. Also, I never said the NBA wasn't doing well, I said it hadn't been doing as well. Maybe that changed in the last year but that doesn't excuse the 9 before it.

 

[klunderbunker]

1. Before David Stern, the NBA aired on tape delay. With David Stern, it airs live on ABC in prime time. I think that alone is a sign he's done good things for the league.

2. As for this case, Popovitch's job is to win NBA Championships, which he's proven he knows how to do almost as well as anyone in the history of the league. It's not his job to make sure the NBA has a battle of top stars on a Thursday because it's a nationally televised game. Pop has used this same tactic for years now and he'll use it again.

It is however David Stern's responsibility to make sure that every game is as exciting as possible. As Sly mentioned, watching guys who happen to have a Spurs jersey on is like watching jobbers fight in the WWE. Yeah it's WWE, but people aren't going to want to pay to see it. It's why I don't watch preseason sports: most of the guys you see out there aren't going to be on the field/court at all in the regular season, so what difference does it make?

Stern had a reason to defend his league and the fans who would have been disappointed in not seeing a big time matchup on Thursday. Popovitch did absolutely nothing wrong, but it was an odd situation. The schedule got in the way, and there's nothing that could be done about it. Popovitch is a brilliant coach and if he thinks it's right to rest those guys, no one here is qualified to argue with him from a basketball perspective and neither is David Stern. From a business perspective though, Stern did what he had to do.

 

[Slyfox696]

Revenue doesn't include expenses. If it isn't going up every year then you have a large problem since you won't be able to keep up with inflation.

20%. Inflation has not gone up 20% in the last year.

I didn't follow it that closely but I think one of the reasons stated for the lockout was that a majority of teams were supposedly losing money.

So they claimed. Many people thought those losses were the result of creative accounting practices, not from lack of interest from fans.

Also, I never said the NBA wasn't doing well, I said it hadn't been doing as well. Maybe that changed in the last year but that doesn't excuse the 9 before it.

Except there's been a trend of growing popularity in the NBA for the past 5 years. So basically, you're talking about a time period from 2002-2006, as the NBA did pretty well in the Jordan years, and did well in the Kobe and Shaq years. So aside from those 4 or 5 years, the NBA has done very well, FAR better than what they did before David Stern took over.

 

[GI Cake]

:
[qutoe]Also, I never said the NBA wasn't doing well, I said it hadn't been doing as well. Maybe that changed in the last year but that doesn't excuse the 9 before it.

Except there's been a trend of growing popularity in the NBA for the past 5 years. So basically, you're talking about a time period from 2002-2006, as the NBA did pretty well in the Jordan years, and did well in the Kobe and Shaq years. So aside from those 4 or 5 years, the NBA has done very well, FAR better than what they did before David Stern took over.

holy cow a typo from Slyfox, this must be some sort of Christmas miracle.

 

[shattered dreams]

20%. Inflation has not gone up 20% in the last year.

So they claimed. Many people thought those losses were the result of creative accounting practices, not from lack of interest from fans.

Actually we would be talking about a two year period. It amuses me that you are taking Stern's estimate as gospel while in the same breath accusing him of untrustworthy accounting. Also, who are these "people" and what did they claim the real numbers were? You can't deny the fact that the owners just collectively agreed it was best for business interest not to play games just last year. Stern is good because he estimates he will be good is a hilarious argument from such an intelligent guy.

[qutoe]Except there's been a trend of growing popularity in the NBA for the past 5 years. So basically, you're talking about a time period from 2002-2006, as the NBA did pretty well in the Jordan years, and did well in the Kobe and Shaq years. So aside from those 4 or 5 years, the NBA has done very well, FAR better than what they did before David Stern took over.[/QUOTE]

Once again, no one is disputing what Stern did for the league. So it goes down for a few years then takes a few more years to get back where it was. Just growing doesn't mean you are doing a great job. I could grow apple but not as much as others. Stern isn't a disaster but that down tick has put him behind at a time when other sports have been growing more significantly. Gaining back the fans you lost is hardly that impressive since you lost them in the first place.

 

[Slyfox696]

holy cow a typo from Slyfox, this must be some sort of Christmas miracle.

I make typos all the time. I usually make them more often during the week than the weekend though, because I'm mentally tired from working on computers all day.

Actually we would be talking about a two year period.

"In the last year" would indicate a starting point of last year and an ending point of this year. Two years. Surely you have more than meaningless word games.

It amuses me that you are taking Stern's estimate as gospel while in the same breath accusing him of untrustworthy accounting.

I did no such thing. Stern doesn't do the books for each team, each team has their own accounts.

Also, who are these "people" and what did they claim the real numbers were?

Well, for example, Nate Silver:

A similar discrepancy exists today between Forbes’s estimates — a $183 million profit for the N.B.A. in 2009-10, and those issued by the league, which claim a $340 million loss. The difference between the two numbers is roughly of the same size on an annual basis as the salary concessions the N.B.A. is seeking.

There are several reasons to be skeptical of the N.B.A.’s figures. First, many of the purported losses — perhaps about $250 million — result from an unusual accounting treatment related to depreciation and amortization when a team is sold. While the accounting treatment is legal, these paper losses would have no impact on a team’s cash flow. Another potential (and usually within-the-law) trick: moving income from the basketball team’s balance sheet to that of a related business like a cable network, or losses in the opposite direction.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...foul-on-n-b-a-s-claims-of-financial-distress/

And if you're wondering about the credibility of Nate Silver, you might have heard him as the man who correctly predicted all but one of the nationally important election races this year, including every single state's Electoral College votes. Needless to say, he has credibility when analyzing data and crunching numbers.

You can't deny the fact that the owners just collectively agreed it was best for business interest not to play games just last year.

Every owner lost 8 home games. For 8 home games, the owners were pushing for a far better revenue sharing deal. Again, Nate Silver:

So why are N.B.A. owners seeking such significant reductions in player salaries, reportedly to about 45 percent of league revenues? The simple reason is that they think they can — and this reflects an awful lot of money. If salaries were reduced to 45 percent of revenues, this would save the owners roughly $500 million per year, or about $3 billion over the course of a six-year labor contract. It is hard to estimate either the near or the long-term cost of cancelling a season, but the potential gain from a more favorable contract is large enough that it is something the owners might be willing to risk.

Stern is good because he estimates he will be good is a hilarious argument from such an intelligent guy.

Had that actually been my argument you might have a point, but since it isn't even close to my argument, your attempt to play word games show how ridiculous you're willing to be in order to debate me. For shame, shattered, for shame.

Once again, no one is disputing what Stern did for the league.

Uh, yes they were.

So it goes down for a few years then takes a few more years to get back where it was. Just growing doesn't mean you are doing a great job. I could grow apple but not as much as others. Stern isn't a disaster but that down tick has put him behind at a time when other sports have been growing more significantly. Gaining back the fans you lost is hardly that impressive since you lost them in the first place.

That's nonsense, in two different ways. First of all, growing DOES show a good job, especially as the NBA has grown as the economy shrank. Second of all, other sports HAVEN'T been growing more significantly. Interest in MLB is lower than it was when Stern took over, and still no one cares about the NHL. Soccer hasn't grown more significantly than the NBA in the last 30 years.

There is only one team sport which you can say has grown significantly in the last 30 years (unless you count Nascar, which I'm not), and that's the NFL, and the NFL is arguably the most popular sport in American history right now.

 

[jmt225]

He's no Roger Goodell, but fuck David Stern. That fine was ridiculous.

And I just don't see how Stern deserves credit for the success of the NBA. He was simply lucky enough to come along during the Magic/Bird rivalry. Those two guys, plus Michael Jordan, deserve all the credit for the NBA's turnaround. All David Stern did was make sure the Knicks got the 1st Round Draft pick in 1985, and that Jordan got every call imaginable from the refs once Magic and Bird were gone. The guy has no ethics whatsoever; he will screw anyone over to have his way for "the better of the league." Again, he's no Roger Goodell, but nearly all the criticism he gets is fair.

 

[shattered dreams]

I don't see how you can say almost any sport hasn't grown significantly in the last 30 years. However, I feel the need to call your attention to the fact that I have made nothing but positive statements related to 10-30 years ago. Thanks for the Silver link, I will look at later. Ironically I think I saw a link about MLS passing the NBA in average attendance sometime in the last year or two. Not that such a factoid means much of anything by itself but that is fitting with your rigorous methodology. I also strongly disagree that growing absolutely indicates above average job performance.

 

[Slyfox696]

He's no Roger Goodell, but fuck David Stern. That fine was ridiculous.

And I just don't see how Stern deserves credit for the success of the NBA. He was simply lucky enough to come along during the Magic/Bird rivalry.

And was good enough to market it properly. To use a wrestling example, think Steve Austin.

Those two guys, plus Michael Jordan, deserve all the credit for the NBA's turnaround. All David Stern did was make sure the Knicks got the 1st Round Draft pick in 1985, and that Jordan got every call imaginable from the refs once Magic and Bird were gone.

Stern is the reason guys like Jordan and LeBron are such huge names. The NBA's decision to market superstars, rather than teams, is what allowed guys like Jordan and LeBron to become worldwide megastars. Compare Jordan to Tom Brady. Are they both not incredible players, arguably the best ever in their sport? Of course they are. And yet, who has more recognition, Jordan or Brady? And Jordan retired from the Bulls almost 15 years ago.

Don't underestimate what Stern has done for the NBA.

The guy has no ethics whatsoever; he will screw anyone over to have his way for "the better of the league."

That's because he's employed by team owners, not NBA fans or players. Stern is responsible for looking out for the teams, no one else.

I don't see how you can say almost any sport hasn't grown significantly in the last 30 years.

I didn't say that, I specifically mentioned the NFL.

But the NFL is the only team sport, besides the NBA, to have grown significantly since Stern became commissioner.

Ironically I think I saw a link about MLS passing the NBA in average attendance sometime in the last year or two.

You did. But I believe the stadiums for soccer games are larger as well, which obviously means you can put more people in there.

I also strongly disagree that growing absolutely indicates above average job performance.

What else would, in your opinion? Besides making money, expanding basketball's global influence, and positioning itself as the sport of the next generation, what else should David Stern have done?

 

[gd]

lol MLS

 

[klunderbunker]

As for Stern's involvement in the popularity of the league, think of it like this:

Verne Gagne had Curt Hennig, Hulk Hogan, Rick Rude, Scott Hall, Jesse Ventura and a bunch of other guys I'm forgetting. He went out of business. Vince McMahon turned those guys into a worldwide empire.

See the difference?

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

You can hate David Stern all you want, and at times I do, but he has done a fine job as commissioner. Do I like the bias shown towards larger market teams? Of course not. The NFL makes markets out of nothing by showcasing winners. The NBA ignores winners if they aren't in the right market.

He also tells thugs (the white ones as well, so no, that's not a racist comment) to dress like human beings, which I like.

 

[shattered dreams]

I read the Silver piece last night and one of his links, interesting stuff. If you inferred that I thought the owners number was completely accurate then you were mistaken. You don't need to sell me on Silver, I have known who he is for a long time through his sabermetrics work. Here is a nice article he wrote on the AL MVP situation, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/the-statistical-case-against-cabrera-for-m-v-p/ , spoiler: he is for Trout. Nice to see Sly stay consistently inconsistent on what sources prove what.

As far as the actual piece I am confused why you think it goes against my original statements. An important distinction to make is that a lot of what the piece talks about is expenses that the players arguably should not bear responsibility for. However, this is not the same thing as saying all business aspects are doing good. The players may not have a responsibility for these things but the Commisioner certainly does for at least some of them, especially if we are claiming he gets credit for every penny made. Regardless of that let's stick with the Forbes estimates. Yes, he does suggest even these could still be conservative but all things considered this is at worst a middle ground for judging Stern.

There is a nice inflation adjusted table that lets us take a look at what has been going on. In 2002-2003 total revenue decreased. In 05-06 ticket revenue dropped and then briefly went back up the next year before falling every year after that until 2010 where it was actually 6% less than it was 5 years before. It is true that revenues overall did trend up but this would fall under my questions about were things being run as good as they could have been. But remember revenue is merely part of the story. In the last 5 years before 2010 the players salaries grew over 5% and the other expenses grew by almost 13 percent leading to 31 percent dip in operating income. Sure the league might have made money but the trend isn't a glowing recommendation of Stern as for even the 10 year period operating income was down 12.5 percent inflation adjusted. Also, even Forbes estimated a majority of teams were losing money (17 out of 30). The league made around 183 mil but 3 teams (Knicks, Lakers, Bulls) made around 150 mil by themselves.

Stern did get the owners a good deal but I am not sure how good he was doing for them during the periods I mentioned.