0 comments David Stern Is Just Being an Asshole Now

I'm not a big fan of David Stern. A full discussion on this issue is probably better suited for a different post where I can explain better. He seems like a man who believes he is more competent at his job than he truly is. He has vetoed NBA trades, let the Sonics leave Seattle, and is commissioner of a league where the players have all the power and can determine what personnel moves his team makes. He really believes he does a fantastic job and I'm not sure sure this is true. Mostly, Stern is still annoying me by taking a shit on the NCAA with the one-and-done rule and then asking the NCAA to clean up the mess.

I'm not going to deny the NCAA has problems and issues. I could probably spend 10,000 words describing them to you and you would already know what many of these issues are. As I have written repeatedly, the one-and-done rule is an NBA rule. It wasn't created by the NCAA nor does the NCAA like the rule. This doesn't stop Dictator Stern from giving suggestions on how the NCAA can work around the rule. NBA Dictator David Stern a few weeks ago decided to take shots at the NCAA concerning the one-and-done rule, as if this is something the NCAA needs to figure out and has nothing to do with him.

I'm not going to argue the NCAA shouldn't do more to figure out how to handle one-and-done players in terms of having them go to class and graduate. The NCAA needs to figure out how to better handle the one-and-done players, since this rule isn't going away completely anytime soon. Stern had smug and completely unrealistic ideas in a recent press conference for what the NCAA should do in order to help fix the problem the NBA has created. He's so damn smug for a guy who exercises his NBA dictatorial powers only when it is convenient for him to do so.

David Stern has some ideas about how to solve the problem of so-called “one and done” players at the college level — you know, guys who go to school for just one year simply because the NBA’s age limit makes it impossible to declare for the draft straight out of high school.

I'm not asking for David Stern to solve all of the NCAA's problems, but if he sees the one-and-done rule as some sort of a problem (which he seems to) then why can't he see the NBA's own culpability for part of the problem? I have a great idea about how to solve the one-and-done "problem." Let players come to the NBA straight after high school. Or, make the players stay in school for two years and then go to the NBA. There are solutions, but Dictator Stern chooses to be a dick about it and refuse to discuss any solutions outside of the one-and-done rule or making college athletes stay in school for two years and then go to the NBA. Much like what happened in the lockout, his inability to compromise is hurting a third party.

But they aren’t necessarily serious, and they aren’t necessarily ideas that the NCAA might want to hear.

Because the ideas suck and aren't really ideas, but snide comments Stern has made that aren't workable in reality. I would hope Stern wouldn't be such a smug asshole to the NCAA since it helps market future NBA players for the NBA. The NCAA puts these players on the radar to become more popular in the eyes of basketball fans prior to entering the NBA. How many people would know much about Anthony Davis if he didn't play at Kentucky this year? Not very many. The NBA doesn't want to lose the NCAA as a free marketing wing of the NBA, so they refuse to budge on the one-and-done rule.

He essentially put the onus on the schools for making sure the players keep their ends of the bargain where classes and scholarships are concerned.

So as opposed to putting the onus on the NBA owners and general managers to properly evaluate high school talent, Stern keeps the rule and forces the NCAA to adjust so the NBA can look better? He puts the onus on colleges to make sure students who have zero interest in attending class and participating in school, are attending class and participating in school. Dictator Stern is smart because he knows NBA owners and general managers are a generally incompetent bunch and won't be able to properly evaluate high school players and the NBA will get negative publicity if players come straight from high school and bust. Typical Dictator Stern. I know he is looking out for the NBA's best interests, but does he have to do it on the back of so many other people?

Granted, there are egregious examples of poor evaluation of college talent who aren't one-and-done. Hasheem Tha-bust and Jordan Hill are great examples of this. Both players were drafted too high and have struggled in the NBA. Teams are going to miss on talent and it happens in every sport. The issue is a public relations problem when the NBA has players come straight from high school and don't succeed in the NBA. Therefore the one-and-done rule was implemented in order for the NBA to say, "Hey look, this player went to college for a year. NOW he is mature enough for the NBA."

I favor players having to stay in college for two years, then going to the NBA, but I also realize this is unrealistic. While I think going to college for two years and learning significantly can help a player's overall game, I also understand this isn't necessarily fair to the student-athlete. There are certain players who are ready for the NBA after high school.

“A college could always not have players who are one and done,” Stern said.

That is absolutely true and some programs choose not to take on one-and-done players? Someone is going to end up taking these one-and-done players that other schools will choose not to recruit. David Stern knows this, so his simplistic solution won't work. It would not be in the best interest of the student-athlete if basketball programs banded together and said they would not recruit this specific person because he is going to be one-and-done. At that point, Stern and the NBA's one-and-done rule would possibly be denying this student-athlete even a year's worth of an education in college. It sounds easy to just say, "don't recruit these players," but it is much harder to do in practice.

“They could do that. They could actually require the players to go to classes.

How do you require John Wall to go to classes after he has declared for the draft on April 2? Take away the scholarship he isn't going to be using? Don't worry, Dictator Stern has a solution for this as well. This is a guy who can't resolve the NBA's issues sufficiently, but he certainly thinks he can fix the NCAA's problems.

“Or they could get the players to agree that they stay in school,

Good luck with that. If the intent is to have more high school players go overseas like Jeremy Tyler and Brandon Jennings, this would be the way to do it. I think it would be 100% easier just to get rid of the one-and-done rule, but I guess I'm not quite as smart as David Stern believes himself to be.

and ask for their scholarship money back if they didn’t fulfill their promises.

Haha! These kids, many of whom come from a background to where they couldn't afford college without a scholarship, are going to PAY BACK their scholarship for daring to pursue their goal of playing in the NBA? You think the NCAA is viewed as treating the players like unpaid employees now? Imagine if the NCAA essentially forced the students to work off their athletic scholarship or forced them to pay it back all because the NBA and Dictator Stern won't allow them to join the NBA out of high school. This idea simply won't work.

There’s all kinds of things that, if a bunch of people got together and really wanted to do it, instead of talk about it …”

Right, because a bunch of people should get together and really try to figure out a way to work around the inane one-and-done rule that the NBA has imposed on college basketball in order to make themselves look like they give a shit about their players. The easiest solution isn't to simply abolish the one-and-done rule and replace it with a better rule that isn't a restraint of trade, but for the NCAA to get together and "talk about it." Again, in his typical smug way David Stern is passing off the one-and-done rule as an NCAA problem, which it is, but only because he fails to recognize the NBA's culpability in creating this problem. Stern passes the buck to NCAA colleges because he doesn't want to deal with the issue of players coming to the NBA directly after high school. Yes, how to manage the one-and-done rule falls to NCAA colleges, but the NBA is creating the problem the NCAA has to manage.

But Stern was largely light-hearted in his suggestions, and talked bigger picture about young players whose primary goal is to secure a place in the NBA.

As long as he can be lighthearted about a serious subject, no big deal. It's all fun and games for Dictator Stern as long as we aren't talking about his brilliant guidance which has led to many NBA teams losing money. Of course Stern doesn't think that is his problem either nor does he believe it is a reflection on his leadership.

“Years ago, I said to the NCAA, I’ve got a great idea,” he said

The NCAA should institute a dress code for players?

The NCAA should randomly prevent players from transferring to certain colleges even though the college the player is transferring from has no issue with it?

The NCAA Tournament should last for two months until the average fan is simply tired of watching them?

These are all brilliant NBA idea that could translate to the NCAA!

‘We’ll insure a select group of basketball players. And that will make them more likely to stay in school, because they won’t feel the loss of a big contract.

But these players want to play in the NBA. This is the issue. The issue isn't whether Anthony Davis is concerned about losing a big contract or not, the issue is he wants that big contract RIGHT NOW while playing in the NBA.

We’ll designate a pool, and those that are lucky enough to be drafted and make money will pay us back, and those that don’t, it’s our expense.

I'd love to know how this select group of players would be chosen. David Stern doesn't tell us that. This doesn't sound like a bad idea, except for the fact the NCAA has players who want to go pro in different professional sports who want this same guarantee. I'm sure Title IX would have something to say about this policy as well. This is yet another simplistic solution from David Stern that is nearly impossible to institute.

The NCAA I think took it to a committee, that takes it to a census, that took it to a conference, then they have a congress and they came back to me and they said, well, it will only work under our rules if we do that for all sports. And I said, I don’t think that’ll work.”

I like how Stern mentions all the levels this idea had to pass through. It's weird not having a dictatorship in place, isn't it?

Yes, so this idea wouldn't work. It was not a bad idea, just not a workable idea.

But what would work, at least for the NBA, is a longer period of time to evaluate talent at the college level.

Because Dictator Stern views the NCAA as a free farm system for the NBA. In return for providing a free farm system, Stern provides the NCAA with the inane one-and-done rule.

“I agree with the NCAA that it would be great for us — I’m not concerned about NCAA, and our rules are not social programs,” Stern said.

But the rule is a social program. It causes high school basketball players who may want to go to the NBA to go overseas, play in the D-league or go to college for one year. It's intent isn't to be a social program, but in a few ways that is what it has become.

“We don’t think it’s appropriate for us to lecture kids as to whether they should or shouldn’t go to school.

And yet, that is exactly what the NBA is doing. They are saying, "We don't want you in the NBA immediately after high school, but wait one year and then you can come to the NBA. We're not saying you should or should not go to school, but we are saying you should not be in the NBA." Kids know their best chance for exposure is to play college basketball for a year, hence they go to school. I don't care what the intentions of the one-and-done rule are. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is the impact the one-and-done rule has on colleges and from what I understand it isn't a positive impact.

For our business purposes, the longer we can get to look at young men playing against first-rate competition, that’s a good thing.

I understand business. I get how the NBA views the NCAA, as a free farm system for future NBA talent. I do believe it is a bit unfair for the NBA to view the NCAA this way, but that's reality.

Because draft picks are very valuable things.

These aren't college athletes to David Stern, they are draft picks, which are "things."

For us, it’s one more year. We proposed to the players two more, and it was sufficiently contentious around that.

I know this is irrelevant, but have you asked your free farm system, the NCAA, what they want? Not that it matters of course. Getting kids to go to class is each specific college's problem, not David Stern's. He is comfortable with the one-and-done rule because it absolves him from much criticism and places the criticism on NCAA head coaches who dare to recruit a player who may want to stay in college for only one year.

We agreed, as all good negotiators do, we referred it to a sub-committee and we’re going to have meetings about it to see how that works out. “

More meetings is always the best solution. Fortunately David Stern has provided a resolution to this issue earlier in this press conference and he didn't even know it. Here's what David Stern could do to fix this issue...

What if you get a bunch of people together in one room, and you really wanted to resolve this issue, instead of talking about it...

Stern and Silver were careful to point out that they have an excellent relationship with NCAA president Mark Emmert, and again, even the shots came with big smiles and laughs all around.

It's just part of the smugness of David Stern. He can't help but smile at his good fortune. He rules like a dictator and has had quite a few controversies on his watch, and yet he seems to have a better reputation than every commissioner except Roger Goodell. So I can't blame him for pushing the one-and-done rule back on the NCAA. He'll get away with it.

I realize Stern has been commissioner for a while, but in the last fifteen years Stern has overseen two lockouts (both causing NBA games to be missed), a betting scandal among NBA officials that called into question the legitimate outcome of playoff games, and as of December Stern was overseeing the personnel moves of a team the NBA owns because the league still hasn't found an owner for that team. Just imagine if this happened in baseball. Imagine if Bud Selig has presided over two lockouts in the past 15 years and an umpire had been caught fixing playoff games. People, mostly Murray Chass, would be calling for his head and for Selig to immediately retire. After all, we are told to see Bud Selig as a bumbling idiot who doesn't really know what he is doing.

Dictator Stern still lives on though. What's irritating isn't that he is really incompetent, because he isn't incompetent, but his hubris makes you wonder what the hell he is so proud of. David Stern has helped bring the NBA to the point the players are more important than the owners and coaches to where one unhappy player can topple the direction of a franchise. He's presided over a league that has seemed to alienate many of those who became fans of the NBA during the 1980's and early 1990's, so Stern's response to this was to institute a dress code, which naturally fixed everything. Attendance is up...sort of and if people weren't so apathetic to the NBA, many would probably be wondering why the growth of the league has felt so stagnant.

I'm just ranting now.

But it’s clear that Stern believes the “one and done” problem is an NCAA-only issue,

That would be true...other than the fact the one-and-done rule is an NBA rule. I know, details, who needs them?

and it isn’t one that he seems to have any interest in helping to solve at any point in the immediate future.

Of course not. Stern is comfortable with using the one-and-done rule as a way of getting free marketing for future NBA stars, while not being concerned with how this rule affects the NCAA. The one-and-done rule is a good situation for the NBA. It prevents NBA scouting departments from having to do their job as well as they should have to do their job. I am personally not enamored with the one-and-done rule and can live with it to an extent, but as long as David Stern and the NBA Player's Union don't let high school basketball players go to the NBA directly from high school, then David Stern should stay away from making any more lighthearted or serious "suggestions" for the NCAA.

11 comments Sometimes The Simple Answer Isn't The Correct Answer

Buzz Bissinger believes he knows why the NBA is losing popularity, even though television viewing numbers for the NBA are up. He thinks white NBA fans don't like watch non-white players play the game of basketball. I feel like Buzz is projecting some of his opinions on to others here. I am sure for some people this may have something to do with it, but overall I don't believe this sufficiently explains the decline in the NBA's popularity. Buzz disagrees.

(For the record, I don't believe the NBA is declining in popularity. I believe fewer fans are coming to the game because they can't afford it. Buzz grasps desperately on to the idea he sees empty seats at NBA games and thinks the NBA is becoming less popular because there isn't a white superstar.)

My editor thinks I should write something about professional basketball. The timing is certainly right—the National Basketball Association’s All-Star extravaganza starts today in Los Angeles, culminating in the All-Star game on Sunday night.

This tells me two things right at the start:

1. Buzz Bissinger has no interest in talking about the NBA and may not know a hell of a lot about the NBA.

2. Buzz had to think fairly hard as to what to talk about in regard to the NBA. So while reading what he has written, and how he lumps everyone into his own feelings about race in the NBA, please remember there is a good chance he doesn't know what he is talking about.

The problem is, I don’t really know what to say about the NBA other than I almost never watch it anymore.

Which, depending on your point of view, makes him one of the people best-suited or worst-suited to talk about the NBA and its decline in popularity. This is the state of journalism today. A serious sports journalist (and I would consider Buzz Bissinger to be one) begins an article saying he was told to talk about a subject and he doesn't know much about a subject...yet he wants us to take his ideas and beliefs seriously. The fact Buzz wrote this makes it a topic for debate, but why should it be. Buzz has pissed all over his own credentials to discuss this topic expertly in the opening paragraph.

I am not a basketball junkie and I have no desire to be one. There are maybe three players I would pay to watch.

Clearly, Buzz's discussion on the NBA's decline in popularity is a passion project for him. I am going to make a new rule. If you don't watch a sport, don't want to write about a sport and wouldn't pay to see but three players in that sport perform, then maybe you should refrain from writing about that sport and believing you know the reason the sport is in decline is because of racial issues. Few things are worse than reading an uninformed person trying to talk about race.

Then Buzz lists LeBron James, Kevin Durant and Kobe Bryant as the players he would pay to watch. Through this entire article I think Buzz has a somewhat tough time differentiating between fans who pay to go to NBA games and how this affects (or doesn't affect) the overall popularity of the NBA. For example, he uses the decline in attendance as a reason for why the United States wants to see more white players in the NBA, but the ratings for the NBA All-Star Weekend argues differently about the NBA declining in popularity. The ratings for TNT and ESPN NBA games also argue differently, but because Buzz doesn't see asses in the seats while flipping between "House Hunters" and his local news he thinks the sport is in decline. Essentially I think Buzz confuses NBA fans wanting to pay to go to games with the overall popularity of the sport. There is more that goes into fans attending games than just how much those fans like the sport (like the economics of purchasing a ticket).

The game is in trouble and I don’t think there is much dispute about that. Attendance was down last year and is slightly down so far this season. Although basketball is supposed to be a team game, it has become more one-on-one in the NBA than a boxing match.

The style has changed and it is a definite turnoff.

Buzz answers his own query as to why the NBA could be declining in popularity. I would argue it has less to do with race issues and more to do with the style of play in the NBA. This would explain why the race issues he argues are present in the NBA are not present in the NFL, college football, college basketball or MLB. Wouldn't the same people who want to see more white athletes also decline to support those four other major sports? Logically yes, but other than MLB none of those sports are declining in popularity. Buzz will make an argument that other sports have white superstars and that's why white people will watch. I find it hard to believe this is a compelling reason.

The problem with the NBA, at least in my mind, is the style of play is not that exciting. When I watch an NBA game I find myself looking at players jog down the court, go stand in a corner, and I have a hard time getting into the game. Sure this sounds like a cliche, the NBA player standing in the corner and watching another player go one-on-one, but it is a true cliche. Carmelo Anthony was isolated nearly 37% of the time in Dener. Yes, Anthony is good at isolation, but this doesn't make for a very exciting time while watching the game.

Buzz essentially hits the nail on the head for why people like me don't enjoy NBA games as much anymore, but of course he then blames the NBA's decline on another cause (race). Something has changed in the way NBA games are played and the average fan may not want to pay to go to a game. I believe between the obvious incompetence of some team's front offices and other factors like how the game is played the average NBA fan has lost interest. Race may have something to do with it, but not as big of a role as Buzz Bissinger wants to believe.

For example, this may be hard to believe, but I lose interest in the NBA when Cleveland trades Mo Williams and Jamario Moon for Baron Davis. After seeing the Cavs lose LeBron James I was rooting for them to turn it around, but then they trade for Baron Davis and it makes me wonder if the Cavs' front office didn't deserve to lose LeBron in free agency. This type of incompetence and bad trading is pervasive through the NBA. I think what separates this trade deadline from others is some teams didn't just dump salary, they got some talent back in return for players.

But a major problem with the NBA, one that is virtually never spoken about honestly, is the issue of race

This issue has been discussed repeatedly over the last 10-15 years. Beginning with the Iverson era and how the NBA allowed (yes, allowed) people to frame their players and the league, the issue of race has been a major issue involving the NBA. That's why David Stern instituted a dress code and started the silly "NBA Cares" promotions, which forces players into donating their time each year so the NBA can film them and say they care.

I have no hard-core evidence.

"I don't like Subject X. I don't watch Subject X. Subject X is in trouble because of Reason Y, but I have no proof of it. But believe me, I'm right about Subject X being in trouble."

I know that whites ascribe very different characteristics to black athletes than they do white ones.

I find this untrue, but let's assume it is true. So why doesn't this affect the popularity of other sports that have more black and Latino athletes than white athletes? It would make sense for MLB fans not to like baseball as much because of all the Latino athletes and for the NFL to be declining in popularity if this were completely true. Every athlete has minorities that are superstars, wouldn't "whites" ascribe these characteristics to these players and lose interest in said sport? If Buzz believes I think minorities are lazy then why would I watch a college basketball game and enjoy it more than I enjoy an NBA game? Because there may be a white superstar on the court? That's ridiculous.

I also make a habit of asking every white sports fan I know whether they watch the NBA. In virtually every instance, they say they once watched the game but no longer do. When I ask them if it has anything to do with the racial composition, they do their best to look indignant.

This look of being indignant is obvious proof to Buzz that the racial composition of the NBA is the real reason these fans don't watch the sport as much. Somehow this racial composition doesn't affect the popularity of other sports, including college basketball and college football. Strange.

But my guess is they felt very differently about the game when Larry Bird and John Stockton were playing.

There is a reason you call it a "guess," because you don't know. So pretending to know the reason these people don't watch the NBA is be a useless exercise with Buzz's current knowledge base. A writer just can't think of a reason why he believes something is true and then when presented with opposing data doubt the honesty of the person giving the data.

Based on various statistics, the percentage of African-American players in the NBA has remained relatively constant over the past decade, fluctuating between 72 and 75 percent. The number of foreign-born players has increased exponentially to about 18 percent. The number of white American players, meanwhile, has decreased from 24.3 percent in the 1980-81 season to roughly 10 percent now.

These foreign-born players aren't all non-white. Many of them are white Europeans. So the average NBA fan is not only covertly racist, but also xenophobic?

The one white American player today who comes the closest to being a star is Kevin Love of the Minnesota Timberwolves. He is averaging 21 points a game and 15 rebounds. He is on the West roster in the All-Star Game. Do you know anyone who would pay to see Love play?

Whether a person would pay to see a player play the sport of basketball isn't the end-all be-all to determine the popularity of that sport. Many people, especially in this economic age, can't afford to pay to see athletic events. So to connect NBA attendance completely with the popularity of the sport and the racial composition of the NBA is a tenuous connection at best. I can be a fan of Kevin Love, enjoy the NBA and not buy a ticket to a Timberwolves game.

I watched Kevin Love play in college, along with his non-white teammates, and I enjoyed it very much. Why would I suddenly become racist once Love and his teammates make the NBA? Isn't it possible something other than primarily race issues makes fans enjoy college basketball but not the NBA? I love MLB but I don't watch college baseball. What does it mean other than I prefer professional baseball to college baseball?

It boils down to this: Are whites losing interest in a game in which the number of white American players not only continues to dwindle, but no longer features a superstar?

No. Whites are losing interest (where is the data to prove this other than a poll of Buzz's friends?)---though I think this is arguable---for reasons other than this. I won't deny the lack of a white American superstar in the NBA may have some reason for the (supposed) decline in popularity of the sport. These people who use this reason to not watch the NBA aren't NBA fans though. These people aren't fans of basketball, which is why fans of basketball would watch the NBA regardless.

I do also think this may say more about the sport than it says about the racial opinions of white America. If the roles were switched and MLB did not have a non-white superstar, and faced declining interest due to this, I would imagine there would be quite a movement (rightly as well) for MLB to get more non-white fans involved and hope to spring interest in baseball among non-white youths. I am not exactly sure the point Buzz is trying to prove. I have always thought it is a bit contradictory that a sport (like MLB) has been seen as needing to integrate more non-whites in order to gain a large fan base and increase in popularity because that non-white fan base needs players to identify with, meanwhile the NBA isn't seen as needing to add white players (which is a ridiculous idea) and the lack of a white superstar and the league's (supposed) decline in popularity shows just how racist we all are.

I am digressing a bit...

In a piece for Parade magazine last year, he wrote that the NBA game needed to be significantly modified to regain its former popularity. In talking with NBA watchers, he came up with six solutions to improve play, including shortening the 24-second clock, increasing the number of fouls for a player before fouling out, and shortening the season.

I don't know if these suggestions would work or not. Here are 11 more ways to fix the NBA, from the same author. I think these suggestions on how to fix the NBA are a lot closer than simply saying interest is declining because the sport isn't white enough. I don't think the NBA should be contracted though.

It has to do with racial stereotyping. Those stereotypes are wrong. They are malicious. But to act is if they do not exist is disingenuous. When I wrote the book Friday Night Lights about high-school football in Texas, I saw the racial stereotypes of some whites up close—their firm belief that white athletes admirably succeeded because of hustle and hard work and brains, and black athletes succeeded solely on the basis of pure athletic skill.

Buzz has written this entire article racial stereotyping the reason why whites don't watch the NBA. Now he projects his own race issues on everyone else.

Do you which group is the absolute worst purveyor of this "lazy black man-hardworking white man" belief? The mainstream media. How many articles about the grit and hustle of guys like Danny Woodhead, David Eckstein, Darin Erstad, and tons of other white guys do we see written per year? So it isn't the fan who is the originator of this belief, it is the sports media that writes articles and fluff pieces which show white athletes as hard working and full of grit and they tend not to do the same for a black athlete. Here is an example I covered of this concerning Danny Woodhead.

I know there are people who have this belief, but Buzz shouldn't blame this belief on his own unofficial research from over 20 years ago in Texas. He should look on the Internet and in the sports pages to see where this idea truly originates from. I refuse to believe the idea black athletes don't work hard is why the NBA is declining in popularity. This is lazy thinking. Am I to really believe this "lazy black man-hardworking white man" idea was prevalent in the 1980's as well, but the fact white America had a white superstar to look to this was ignored? The presence of Kurt Rambis, Bill Laimbeer, Jon Koncak and Greg Kite helped white America feel better about the sport even though non-white players like Michael Jordan, Dominique Wilkins, Magic Johnson, Isiah Thomas, and Patrick Ewing were dominating the sport?

Lack of effort is what whites still assume of black athletes in basketball—they don’t have sufficient desire, their body language during timeouts connotes boredom, they are always looking in the stands for the next concubine, they just don’t have that blue-collar work ethic that makes great white athletes great.

"Looking in the stands for the next concubine?" Really?

It doesn't take a genius to see where many NBA fans may have gotten lost. Look at games from the 1980's and 1990's. The game is played much differently now than it was then. The game is just different now. It is not about who is lazy and who is not lazy, and has very little to do with the perception of the athletes playing in the NBA. It is about the pace at which the game goes. The game seems to move slower now and everything seems less rowdy, on and off the court. I watch the 1987 Eastern Conference Finals from time-to-time and it feels like a different game from now. It has nothing to do with white or black players either.

This whole "white athlete works hard" and "the black athlete is lazy" dichotomy does have some merit...but very little merit. Most of the merit, as I stated before, is seen in how white athletes are covered by the media. This dichotomy is the reason why college basketball analysts fucking go bananas whenever the name Jimmer Fredette is mentioned. Sports analysts have a tendency to overhype white college basketball athletes (see: Morrison, Adam) while seeing a non-white player who is merely really, really good as a disappointment at times (Harrison Barnes). So yes, white college basketball analysts have a tendency to make white players more prominent. Yes, there is a larger sample of white college basketball players to cheer for, but I still believe college basketball would suffer the same racial problem the NBA has if white fans thought black athletes were lazy.

(Side note: One of the most irritating things for me this college basketball year is Jimmer Fredette. Yeah, he's great. He also averages nearly 19 shots per game. He's a great player but he also takes a lot of shots. Compare him to Deron Williams all you want. I am keeping notes on this comparison and will be glad to throw them in someone's face in 3 years.)

The National Football League is majority African American. Since the game is predicated on brute strength that is impossible to fake, there is rarely any grumbling that African-American athletes are not trying hard enough.

How many times have people accused Terrell Owens of alligator-arming a pass over the middle? Accused Randy Moss of not trying hard enough? I have personally accused Julius Peppers of taking plays off. Deion Sanders was always criticized for not wanting to tackle. I don't think criticism of players in the NFL trying hard enough is as rare as Buzz believes. This hasn't seem to affect the NFL's popularity. I think NBA attendance may be down, because like MLB, fans will watch games on television rather than go to a game during these tough economic times.

The stigma of the African-American quarterback—that he will never have the intelligence to read defenses and make instant adjustments no matter how quick his release or how far he throws—still very much exists. Which is why Donovan McNabb, the greatest quarterback in Philadelphia Eagles history, is inexplicably loathed by thousands of fans for what they perceived as poor judgment and inconsistency--

I am a defender of Donovan McNabb and think he has always gotten a bad rap. McNabb is also loved by thousands of fans. Thousands of fans, even Yankees fans, loathe Alex Rodriguez and it isn't because he is not white. It is based on the fan's perception of that player's performance. The issue I have here is that some of the criticism towards McNabb doesn't come from whites. So to point the criticism as proof of what white fans think of NBA players is just not a good comparison. Terrell Owens called McNabb out of shape after the Super Bowl loss to New England and in the link that Buzz just linked this was the exchange between Rush Limbaugh and Tom Jackson:

RUSH: I've been listening to all of you guys, actually, and I think the sum total of what you're all saying is that Donovan McNabb is regressing, is going backwards —

TOM JACKSON: Mmm-hmm. (Nodding)

Tom Jackson is not white. So while it is fair to say McNabb got criticism, it is not just criticism from a white fan base who thinks black quarterbacks are lazy. This is a lazy stereotype from Buzz. He wants to prove his point so he falls back on the stereotype that everyone believes black athletes are lazy. All goes to prove is that Buzz really doesn't watch the NBA and he shouldn't be speaking for anyone other than himself.

Major League Baseball is only 9 percent African American. The number of Latino players from Central America is skyrocketing, but there are white stars at every position. Once again, the identification factor.

I will pretend to agree with Buzz on this issue for a minute. What can the NBA do about it? Very little. It is a good thing the NBA doesn't have to do anything about this either, because while NBA attendance is declining, I am not sure the popularity is.

Unless the ghosts of Bird and John Havlicek and Jerry West return to the floor, that isn’t going to happen. And since it isn’t going to happen, the NBA will continue to struggle with an identity crisis that no one wants to publicly acknowledge.

I always love the idea there is a crisis that "no one will acknowledge." The idea this crisis doesn't exist and that's why it isn't acknowledged never crosses Buzz's mind. When in doubt, stereotype and then talk about how there is a crisis no one else will talk about.

So maybe the best thing for whites to do, including myself, is accept the fact there will be no white hope, drop the work-ethic fallacy, and revel in a game that is embedded more than ever with beauty and grace and strength and acrobatics.

How does Buzz know the NBA is embedded more than ever with beauty and grace and strength and acrobatics if he doesn't watch the sport? I don't care about the white hope, clearly Buzz still does.

This column is the result of Buzz being forced to talk about the NBA, Buzz wanting to write an article that gets pageviews, Buzz having no evidence the NBA is broken yet insisting that it is, and then creating a stereotype that he clearly believes as the reason the NBA is broken. How unfortunate this got published.

7 comments So The Trades Happened. Now What?

As you may have heard, a bunch of players were traded in the last few days. And as you may or may not realize, the basketball games have to be played now. When trades happen, everyone cannot help but feeling theoretical and prophetic, myself included. It's nice to think about what might happen. Trade A equals outcome A. Trade B equals outcome B. In reality, however, what has really changed in the NBA?

Nothing, I would say. All the top tier teams have avoided change. All the blockbuster trades involved teams far from contention or barely in the picture. Of course this is an understandable trend. Teams at the top already have potentially championship rosters. Yet the trading among lesser teams is exactly what seems to be the problem. When there are only a handful of contenders, the other 23 teams are attempting to enter the picture. At the current rate of the NBA, we will have a league divided in two: those who can win a title, and those who are 5 years or more away. Making matters worse, these terrible teams are relegated to smaller markets.

Most of the time I'm quick to offer a half-thought-out resolution that 25% satisfies people, 75% enrages them. This time, however, I've got nothing. I do not want to see the NBA contract. Even though I'm from a big market, I like competitive balance. The NBA could turn into the NFL, implementing a hard cap and no team continuity. But current rules and the history of the league in general will be a major impeding factor.

So I'd like to take this opportunity to pose the following question:

How does the NBA (David Stern) fix this problem?

Hopefully we can get a good discussion going in the comments section.

10 comments One-and-Done Will Never Be Done

This time of year many sportswriters and pundits start talking about the NBA's one-and-done rule. Many people hate it (mostly everybody), but other people don't hate it (either NBA fans or the NBA itself). Personally, I don't care for the rule, but I don't care if it gets changed or not. I know that may not make sense to anyone necessarily, so I will explain. I think a player should be able to go straight to the NBA after high school if he wants, but if he goes to college he should stay at least two years. What I like about the one-and-done rule is it allows me to see great high school players play basketball in college for at least one year, but what I hate about the one-and-done rule is it pretty much makes a mockery of the "student-athlete." So while I do enjoy seeing athletes who would normally go to the NBA after high school, the one-and-done rule doesn't seem fair to me.

There is a common misconception the article for today clears up. The one-and-done rule isn't for college basketball, it's for the NBA. It was the NBA specifically who wanted the rule so they could prevent high school kids who aren't ready to play in the NBA from coming straight to the league out of college. Apparently the NBA got tired of stories like Taj "Red" McDavid's gaining sympathy (and making the NBA look bad for "misleading" these type players) and thought this could be prevented by forcing athletes to stay in college for one year and let the NCAA handle the problems this causes. Thanks, NBA!

I have covered this topic somewhat before, but there was an article I wanted to cover on NBCSports.com that talked about it more in length. I, of course, had some comments on the article that I wanted to share.

With all due respect to the rest of the field, the odds are favorable that coach John Calipari and his talented flock of freshmen will be trimming the nets, hugging and dancing as the confetti falls April 5 in Indianapolis.

I think this possibility is very high. If this happens, the next day, 5 members of the team will probably declare for the NBA Draft and 3,561 sportswriters will write a column either about how good the team would be if all those players returned next year, how this could have been one of the best teams of all-time if the players stayed in school, and why the one-and-done rule sucks. David Stern will look forward to the fresh blood in the NBA and begin the process of fixing the draft so the team of his choosing gets John Wall.

But when the party is over, it’s also easy to imagine college basketball suffering through an unusually long hangover period — because the news that follows in the hours, days and weeks after the championship game figures to be unprecedented.

I don't know if "unprecedented" is the right way to state this. The NCAA has had many players go to the NBA in the past, and even many players from one team go to the NBA, before this year. I can think of a bunch of teams right now that lost most of the contributing members of their team after a college basketball season and that team survived. Now it does take a few years to recover from a player exodus like this, but a mass exodus doesn't always leave a program in shambles.

We’ve said quick goodbyes to stars we hardly knew, including Kevin Durant at Texas and Michael Beasley at Kansas State. But if John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins and Eric Bledsoe all leave Kentucky before their championship rings can be ordered, college basketball symbolically will feel the full impact of the so-called “one-and-done” era.

I couldn't agree less. Symbolic or not, I don't think this class of freshmen from Kentucky are going to be the breaking point of the one-and-done rule. I think the only symbolism this exodus from the University of Kentucky would tell us that 2-3 of these players would never have attended college if it weren't for the one-and-done rule. Besides, not all the players who would declare from Kentucky are freshmen. Patrick Patterson is a junior.

Here is a partial list of teams over the last decade or so that lost three or more good players to the NBA Draft and the world did not end, nor did college basketball feel the full impact of the one-and-done rule for an extended period of time. If I forget some players, please tell me, I didn't mean to make this list ACC-centric.

2008 (Kansas): Mario Chalmers, Darrell Arthur, Brandon Rush
2007 (Ohio State): Greg Oden, Mike Conley Jr., Daequan Cook
2006 (Florida): Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah, Al Horford
2005 (UNC-CH): Marvin Williams, Sean May, Raymond Felton, Rashad McCants
2002 (Duke): Carlos Boozer, Jay Williams, Mike Dunleavy
1999 (Duke): William Avery, Corey Maggette, Elton Brand

Those are the ones I could think of off the top of my head. My point is college basketball survived, even if those teams took a little bit of time to recover from the departures.

That isn’t the message college basketball wants to send.

Well of course not. The important thing that needs to be known is the one-and-done rule is an NBA rule, not a college basketball rule. College basketball has nothing to do with the one-and-done rule, other than the fact the student-athletes have to obey it and live with it. A player out of high school either has to go overseas to play or play one season of basketball on a college campus under the one-and-done rule set out by the NBA. College basketball has recovered before and will recover again from the effects of the one-and-done rule.

The Kentucky trio won’t be alone. Xavier Henry of Kansas, Derrick Favors of Georgia Tech and Avery Bradley of Texas are among other freshmen expected to leave school for the pros.

Kansas has the opportunity and ability to recover from losing Xavier Henry, Derrick Favors wasn't staying more than one year anyway, and Texas already has one big recruit that has signed and is looking at others, like Corey Joseph that will replace Avery Bradley. Basically, the Longhorns will survive as well. This happens every year and college basketball recovers. I am not a huge fan of the one-and-done rule, but this year isn't the point at which everything comes crashing down because of the rule.

College basketball, regardless of its new champion, is about to take a major hit.

A hit like college basketball takes nearly every other year. In 2007, two of the best college basketball players in the nation were both freshman. That was of course Greg Oden and Kevin Durant. College basketball took a big hit, but is as fine as it can be now.

The controversial change has worked to the advantage of the NBA, in terms of marketing players and scouting them.

Of course it has worked to the advantage of the NBA. It gives their future players exposure before they actually get drafted and make it to the NBA. College basketball is like a marketing tool for the NBA with the advent of the one-and-done rule. The NCAA puts guys like Kevin Durant on a big stage where they can be seen and then reaps the benefits of this exposure...um, never...and then the NBA comes in and has a ready-made superstar that can go to an NBA team. One-and-done is the NBA originated rule and the NBA really likes it. It's not going away.

It has become a source of great disdain for college coaches.

Well, of course. It affects graduation rates, it causes teams to lose scholarships if the players just quit going to class, makes it difficult to make a decision on whether to recruit a player or not for a coach, and most of all it forces a coach to put in the back of his mind whether he will give a player minutes or not. It sounds crazy but...

For example, if you are Roy Williams, are you giving 25 minutes to Ed Davis in his freshman year so he can progress and go to the NBA after one year if you also have a perfectly good player like Deon Thompson in front of Davis to where he only gets 15-20 minutes and stays out of the eye of NBA scouts? Of you are not giving Davis too many minutes if you think you can have a good team without him playing major minutes. In my mind, if Ed Davis had gotten more minutes than Deon Thompson last year would UNC-CH have been an even better team? Absolutely, he would have progressed to the point where he may have deserved to have major minutes, but why try to develop Ed Davis in his freshman year for the NBA to take him? Work with him in the summer and give yourself one more year with him on the roster. It makes more sense.

This may not be the best example, but I would bet thoughts like this are in the back of a college basketball coach's mind. If they can give another player major minutes ahead of a highly touted freshman without hurting the team, what's the harm?

The important thing is the NBA doesn't give a shit about how this falls on the NCAA. We'll learn more about that later. They get what they want. The players coming into their league get exposure and can adjust to life in the spotlight without having an NBA paycheck. The NBA isn't the bad guy anymore, they just want these players to grow up (for one year) before they play in the NBA.

The players don't want to go to class after their freshman year? That's the NCAA's fault. Players don't stick around for more than one year and it makes it more difficult to recruit not knowing if a freshman is staying or not? Learn to adapt. The NBA wants the NCAA to be responsible for nurturing the players who may get drafted, so these players can adjust to life in the NBA. The NBA doesn't want to be the ones who have the blame put on them of poor advice for a player coming to the NBA out of high school. Now it is the coach of the institution the player left who is responsible for making sure a player doesn't get bad advice and ensuring he stays in good academic standing.

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski has been a leader in opposition to the rule, saying any player who is good enough should be allowed to turn pro directly out of high school.

Baseball players can and hockey players can as well, why can't basketball players? If a player is ready to be in the NBA, then let him go.

But if a player comes to college, Krzyzewski says, he should stay long enough to take the core courses that lead to a degree.

I agree. I think a player should have to stay in school for three years if they are skipping the NBA, but this isn't realistic. I would settle for a player staying two years in college and then being able to go pro. Of course, I am a college basketball fan so I would naturally favor what helps college basketball over the NBA.

Though I don't think forcing players to choose between going straight to the NBA or staying in college for two years hurts the NBA either. It just puts the NBA in a position where they have the problem of policing agents and others who may give the athlete poor advice. The NBA doesn't want to do that. They want a ready-made NBA player and would prefer to leave the dirty world of agents contacting players before they are eligible for the NBA and the policing of this world to the NCAA.

The NBA looks terrible when Taj "Red" McDavid is told he will get drafted and then doesn't get drafted and has hired an agent. That makes them feel bad about themselves. It's much more preferable for the NBA to say a guy like Daequan Cook got bad advice from Thad Matta or ignored the advice of the draft advisory board, which they couldn't control of course because Cook was enrolled at Ohio State at the time he was making the decision to enter the draft or stay in college. It makes the NBA feel a whole lot less dirty.

“It’s a bad rule. I think it’s a really bad rule,” Oklahoma coach Jeff Capel said. “In my opinion, it makes a mockery of education in college and also I think it’s condescending on the NBA’s part. To be honest with you, I’m not sure how much the NBA cares about college basketball. They’re in the business of making the NBA the best product they can make it. I think the NBA is happy with the way their rule is. They get to market these kids for a year (before they turn pro).”

This is exactly right. I think this is the point that is missing in the traditional one-and-done debate. Can you blame the NBA though? If they can get away with it, why stop? It's not their problem a player leaves a program early or because a player has to go to college, a coach bends the rules a little to get him in. The NBA has the one-and-done rule and lets others sort out the problems with the rules and I don't blame them because they can do it.

Many coaches, including Connecticut’s Jim Calhoun and Kansas’ Bill Self, would like to see the NBA allow players to be drafted out of high school, then force those who go to college to stay three years. That model mirrors the entry rules for Major League Baseball’s amateur draft and has been endorsed by the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

I love this rule. From a personal standpoint, I think three years is plenty of time in college. It is a joy to watch a player like Kyle Singler go from a lanky freshman who has to play center at times his freshman year to a small forward as a junior. There is a chance he would have gone to the NBA out of high school if given the chance. Instead of being another Shavlik Randolph who sits the bench because he hasn't developed skills in college, he has gone from a guy who was a little confused on how to play small forward (his natural position) in his team's offense to a difficult matchup for the other team at small forward. He did this since November by the way. He looked like he was bordering on a disaster in the beginning of the season even if the statistics don't show it. Of course he still may not be good enough to go to the NBA, but that is beside the point.

Also, guys like Patrick Patterson and Greg Monroe who very well could have gone to the NBA out of high school, regardless if they were ready or not. They are skilled big men and those guys aren't in high quantity in the NBA. I imagine if the one-and-done rule wasn't in place, one or both of these guys would have gone to the NBA. I have gotten the joy of seeing Patterson go from a inside-out forward who is the best/second best player on his team, to a talented scoring forward who has changed his game to fit the skills of his teammates. Greg Monroe has become the focal point of the Georgetown offense and is a guy who I am going to really love watching in the NBA. Maybe this would have happened after he left high school, but I can't help but imagine playing in the Princeton offense at Georgetown didn't help his skills transfer better to the NBA level, to where he could contribute immediately when he enters the league.

My point is I enjoy watching things like this. I enjoy seeing players progress through college until you actually see their NBA potential. What's frustrating is seeing a guy go-to the NBA because of "potential" that you never actually saw in the player while he was in college. I understand the one-and-done rule from an NBA perspective, but I think there are better options available for players who want to enter the NBA from high school.

For every player who is a success like Durant, the No. 2 overall pick, there’s Javaris Crittenton of Georgia Tech, who was picked No. 19 by the Lakers in 2007 and has bounced around to various teams.

Here's my question...wouldn't that have happened anyway? Granted, Crittenton was young when he came in the league, but some guys don't have the personality to be successful in the NBA and I always thought Crittenton was one of those guys.

Calipari, who recruited Tyreke Evans and Derrick Rose at Memphis, has been labeled a renegade for his open pursuit of one-and-done players.

It's not being a renegade, if that is how you want to build your program then more power to you.

Not every team is able to reload, however. Georgia Tech had two star freshmen in Crittenton and Thaddeus Young in 2007, but they lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament and the Yellow Jackets did not return to the NCAA tourney until this season , losing in the second round to Ohio State.

That's not because of a lack of talent, but a lack of good coaching in my mind. Georgia Tech has always been one of the worst disciplined teams in the ACC since Paul Hewitt got there...at least in my mind. He's a great guy, but he can't control his players. They commit turnovers and sometimes don't look like they give a shit.

South Carolina coach Darrin Horn says if the players produce the way the Kentucky players have, “then absolutely you take those guys.” The negative, Horn says, is replacing them after they are gone.

You absolutely take those guys. I don't disagree. I just hate the way the debate has shifted. It has gone from, "Will the NBA give these players good enough advice about their future and make sure they make good decisions?" to "How do will college coaches adjust to having a player leave early and how do they make sure the player is making the right decision." Basically the NBA Draft decision has shifted away from the NBA itself giving the athlete advice and more on the college coach reaching out and trying to get a feel where that player will go.

What annoys me is the NCAA coaches wanted the commit deadline moved up so they could know who they are going to lose to the NBA Draft and recruit accordingly...and guess who is getting shit for this? NCAA coaches. That's not fair because the one-and-done rule isn't their rule, it is the NBA's rule. NCAA coaches have a job to do and need to know what personnel they will have to do their job effectively. Recruiting isn't just plopping up a player you think may be good, it is about helping a student-athlete choose a school that is right for him and making sure that person will be successful at the school. So Thad Matta just can't grab a small forward if he unexpectedly loses his starting small forward, he has to cultivate relationships with recruits, and needs to be able to tell that recruit what to expect if he chooses Ohio State.

There are hidden consequences. Oden, Conley and Daequan Cook were freshmen when they helped Ohio State reach the 2007 title game and then became first-round draft picks. All were in good academic standing, but Oden failed to complete the third-quarter term. Kosta Koufos did the same thing at Ohio State last year. As a result the Buckeyes saw the team’s Academic Progress Rate (APR) slip, and the NCAA took away two scholarships.

This is another thing that annoys me. This is not a "hidden" consequence. This is a consequence that affects the Ohio State basketball program. Two guys who never wanted to be in college anyway screwed over Ohio State by not staying in good academic standing. Sure, the answer could be, "don't recruit these guys," but that is much easier said than done. What do Oden and Koufos care, they are going to the NBA. What does the NBA care, it's Ohio State's problem.

Why should a college coach like Thad Matta have to make this decision? Why can't Greg Oden go to the NBA after high school? Why can't the NBA figure out a more effective way to integrate their Developmental League with their NBA teams? Use it less as a league where they put crappy players and more of a minor league system. You know why they don't do this? Because the NBA doesn't want to. They are fine with how things are right now. Colleges do a lot of the legwork in getting a player ready for the NBA and the NBA benefits. They don't need their D-league to be a minor league system because they have the NCAA to serve that purpose.

Kentucky could be facing monumental APR consequences if Daniel Orton joins his fellow freshmen in the NBA draft.

He's not ready for the NBA either. So what's the difference in him having gone to the NBA this past year and waiting one year?

and it’s a well-known fact that the majority of players turning pro early do not attend classes after the NCAA tournament.

Would you attend classes if you knew you were going to the NBA after the NCAA tournament? Hell no, I wouldn't. Why would anyone go to class? Remember how it felt as a senior in college or high school? You didn't want to go to class and wanted to party and drink?

(Maybe that is something we feel all 4 years of college, but it's effect is stronger in the senior year)

Imagine if you had that feeling but didn't even have to worry about going to class to impress future employers? I wouldn't have gone and I had fantastic attendance in college. I was a nerd student and only skipped class for intermural softball games or to play pick-up basketball.

See, the effect of the one-and-done rule is that it has taken an NBA issue regarding how young players are prepared for the big lights of the NBA and makes it an NCAA issue about going to class and puts the problems on the NCAA institutions. It's not a direct effect, I will admit, but it is an indirect effect that is not intended...but still exists.

This obviously wasn't the purpose of the rule, the NBA didn't have a master plan, but now they don't get blamed when a guy like Crittenton pulls a gun in a locker room. Rather than have, "Is this the effect of players going straight to the NBA out of college?" article written, the NBA is insulated from a lot of blame for his behavior because he did go to college for one year. I can't remember one article that talked about how Crittenton was a one-and-done player, because it doesn't matter, but I have a feeling it would have mattered just a little bit if Crittenton had skipped college altogether.

Capel thinks any revised rule should require players to stay in school a minimum of two years. NBA commissioner David Stern has indicated he wants to raise the minimum age to 20.

That would probably be fine in my book. I would rather there not be a minimum age and a requirement of two years of college, but I could handle an increase in the age limit.

But Stern became defensive in February during an appearance on the ESPN radio show hosted by Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic. On that show, Dick Vitale called on Stern to sit down with the NCAA and find a logical solution to the rule, which Vitale called an “absolute joke and fraud to the term ‘student-athlete.’ ”

I like David Stern, but this is bullshit and Dick Vitale is right. You won't find me siding with Dick Vitale often, but here I will. He is right.

“First of all, the joke that exists is an NCAA joke,” Stern said.

I don't know how he can say this with a straight face. Probably the same way he can say there are no other NBA officials who gambled on NBA games with a straight face. The one-and-done rule is an NBA rule, it's not a NCAA rule, though they have to live with it. Possibly schools should do more to make sure student-athletes go to class, but if anyone knows of a way to get unmotivated college students to go to class then that person should immediately alert every educator and parent everywhere.

“The idea that the NBA gets blamed for a school and a coach having a player who doesn’t go to classes in the second semester, is not the NBA’s fault. Someone better step up and take responsibility for that.”

I don't want to come off as blaming the entire problem on the NBA, because it is not that way. It is not the direct fault of the NBA, but the one-and-done rule has caused this problem. Merely having the rule in place partially causes this problem.

Imagine you had a job offer coming out of college for sure, no matter how well you did in school. How motivated would you be to attend classes and be a good student? I would bet you wouldn't be incredibly motivated. That's how it is for student-athletes who know they will be drafted in the NBA Draft. It's fine for the school to take responsibility, but there is very few punishments or penalties they can put on a player who wants to stop going to class. What can Kentucky do to John Wall if he wants to stop attending class?

Stern said he knows plenty of coaches who enforce attendance rules and the players are better off for it.

Right, but what happens when that coach isn't the player's coach anymore? Again, I am not blaming the NBA for college attendance problems, that is clearly a school-related problem, I just would ask David Stern not to turn a blind eye to the fact the one-and-done rule exacerbates this problem of class attendance by student-athletes. He should at least acknowledge what part the one-and-done rule plays in this.

Asked about the criticism that the great college players stay only one year, Stern said, “Well, that’s OK with us. It’s better than coming right out (of high school) because we get a chance to see them either in the (developmental) league, in college, or in Europe playing against more elite competition.

Nowhere in that statement will you hear any part of David Stern give a shit about the player's well-being or how one year in college benefits the player from a personal standpoint. That's the entire point I am trying to make. The one-and-done rule is a business decision imposed on the NCAA by the NBA, and the NCAA imposes penalties on programs for educational issues related to this business decision. It's not completely unfair, but I wouldn't exactly call it fair. It is pretty obvious the NBA doesn't give a shit about any of the educational issues and wants the NCAA to learn to work around the one-and-done rule so they can continue to use the NCAA as a feeder system for the NBA.

David Stern doesn't give a shit about the college players coming into the NBA under the one-and-done rule, he only cares how this rule helps his business. That's fine, I just don't find it right that he wants to reap the benefits of the one-and-done rule and throw the consequences back on the NCAA school that has to live with both the benefits and consequences of the rule.

“It’s strictly a matter of collective bargaining with the players’ association. Our rule is about our business, and we can’t change it unless we negotiate with the players’ association.”

I sometimes wish the NCAA would make a rule that is about their business and educational interests and force the NBA's hand on the one-and-done rule. They can't do this. Believe it or not, I don't hate the one-and-done rule, because I like to see future NBA stars play in college, but I also am not blind to the problems it causes. Sometimes I wonder if the rule is worth it. I know the one-and-done rule doesn't affect 99.9% of college athletes, but the 0.01% it affects obviously have an impact on the program they leave.

I wish there would be a 2 year minimum in college or a student-athlete can go straight to the NBA after high school. Why can't an athlete choose that he wants to go to the NBA after high school? This doesn't seem fair to me. Why can't the NCAA decide how long student-athletes have to stay in NCAA basketball programs once they enroll?

Athletes like Brandon Jennings have found a way around the one-and-done rule with success, while others like Jeremy Tyler hasn't succeeded at all.

This is one rule that can’t be changed through NCAA legislation.

This is crazy because it can affect an NCAA basketball program so much.

“And if the NBA is not on board,” Self said, “nothing is going to happen.”

Why would the NBA get on board with another plan when this one is working so well? So while I would like to see the one-and-done rule get slightly changed to a 2 year limit or changed completely and allow players the freedom (they deserve) to go to the NBA after high school, this isn't happening.

6 comments 10 Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: The Gritty Comeback Edition

I haven't done a 10 Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought of in a long while for a variety of reasons. First, during NFL season it is a lot easier to find bad journalism to write about for some reason, and second, I haven't really accumulated that many links in my bookmarks that I didn't think would require a full post. I like doing these "Ten Things..." because it lets me focus on the high points of articles that I may agree or disagree with and skip around from topic-to-topic, which given my short attention span is easy for me to do.

1. Let's start off with a mailbag from the man I am doing a parody of sorts with my title for these "Ten Things..." Peter King.

And now for something completely different: The San Diego Chargers not only did the right thing with LaDainian Tomlinson, they did the right thing at the right time. The next time a team has to deal with releasing a legendary player in decline, club officials should go to school and learn how Dean Spanos and A.J. Smith cut the cord with the eighth-leading rusher of all time.

I would actually disagree in part with this statement. The Chargers did the right thing for Tomlinson but they didn't do the right thing for their team. I always prefer to get rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late and I think the Chargers got rid of Tomlinson a year too late. They used their 1st round pick on Larry English, which I think will pay off at some point, but they could have used that pick or traded up to get Shonn Greene, Beanie Wells, or LeSean McCoy. They didn't do that because they had Tomlinson and Sproles on the roster. They even restructured Tomlinson's contract last year, instead of releasing him.

This is an arguable point, but if they had Greene, Wells, or McCoy would they have been near to last in the NFL in rushing and would they have had a better chance to make the Super Bowl? I argue "no" and "yes." The Chargers did what was right for Tomlinson but hurt their team in the process by getting rid of him a year too late.

In the high-powered offense coach Norv Turner runs, they knew they couldn't tolerate a back who still wanted to be a major presence but couldn't deliver like one.

They had this problem last year as well and didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. I think they should regret it.

Now Tomlinson's agent, Tom Condon, can begin trying to find a new home for LT, working the lobbies at the downtown Indianapolis hotels and the concourses at Lucas Oil Stadium, where the combine drills will take place.

I agree the Chargers were kind to do this, but they should have done it in 2009 and not 2010. Sure, Tomlinson only had one bad year in 2009, but there is a history of running backs slowing down as they hit the work load and the age Tomlinson was coming up on.

From Aaron Monroe, of Tampa: "In honor of your foray to the World Cup this summer (I plan on being there as well to see my first cup games live), I have a question that combines both soccer and the NFL. In MMQB you mentioned about the Bucs shedding payroll rapidly. It's apparent that the product we have here in Tampa isn't as good, but no one seems to honestly talk about why. The Bucs have one of the lowest payrolls in the NFL and lots of 2010 draft picks, yet Mark Dominik has said they are not players in free agency. Passing on Vince Wilfork, Julius Peppers, Richard Seymour. No effort to sign Donte Stallworth or even Mike Vick last year, both coming with minimum cost exposure. Isn't the real reason they're staying on the sidelines because they have all their available cash tied up in a financial disaster with Man U and, a reality that's destroying their NFL product?

Of course, Peter King is probably one of the worst "insiders" at sniffing out "real" stories in the NFL, so I am not sure he is the best person to ask this question to. I get the feeling some NFL people just tell Peter something and know he will accept it without further questions. Sometimes I think people may just make something up and see if Peter King will print it.

PK: That's a commonly held belief by a lot of people around the league, but I checked this morning, and I can tell you there's no evidence to suggest the Glazers are taking, for example, any chunk of their $95 million annual network TV money and funneling it to pay down their debt with Manchester United.

Of course there is no evidence of this. They aren't stupid enough to just leave the evidence of this lying around, but doesn't it make sense they may do this? From a logical point of view? One business is making money, so they use to pay off a debt from owning another team. It doesn't mean they are, it just means it makes sense this could happen.

Rick Gagliardo of Pinehurst, N.C.: "Re: the logjam at the HOF ... I've been thinking about the five- to seven-person limit allowed each year, and I've wondered if that was in the original by-laws when the Hall was founded in 1963...In 1962 there were only 14 teams in the NFL. When the first group of men was voted in, these men, by and large, played in a league with eight teams. If you consider a team as having a 40 man roster -- which I'm sure it didn't most of the time -- it's a stretch to say that as many as 320 men comprised the entire league. After Cleveland and Baltimore were incorporated and Dallas and Minnesota were added in 1960, the NFL stood at 14 teams and 560 players in 1962. With 32 teams now...I would suggest increasing the induction number to seven to 10 a year.

It's an interesting point Rick makes. I am generally against making it easier to get in the Hall of Fame, but his reasoning does seem pretty sound in all honesty. There are more teams, more players, etc...so there should be an occasional increase in the number of players who can make the Hall of Fame.

PK: I think the overriding theme of your letter is that you'd like to see more players inducted, because so many deserve it. As my Sirius Radio friend Bob Papa has suggested, maybe we should have a year or two of much larger classes, to get those the majority of the committee feel are Hall-of-Famers (Dermontti Dawson, Cris Carter, Richard Dent, Shannon Sharpe) off the bubble they've occupied because of the great quality of the modern classes. You may not like my answer, but I don't want to do that.

If a player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, what sense does it make to let a self-imposed limit stop them from making the Hall of Fame?

It should be hard, very hard, to get into any Hall of Fame,

Again, if a player deserves it and the electors don't anticipate doing this every year, and don't get carried away and let players who don't deserve Hall of Fame induction in, what's the problem? It hasn't been made any easier to get in the Hall of Fame, the number limit of players who can be inducted has been temporarily waived. I think we should be able to trust the Hall of Fame voters to make a wise decision in this case...or at least I hope we can.

and who is to say if we admit 12 people in 2011 and 2012 that it won't spawn a whole new class (a slightly lower class) of candidates that we'll be pushed to admit.

It could very well happen. Fortunately, there is thing called "free will" that allows Hall of Fame voters to make up their mind and they aren't forced to vote for any candidate they don't like. If the voters are the susceptible to outside pressure like this, it doesn't make me feel good about their ability to vote for any Hall of Fame class.

The best thing we can do is keep making it difficult to get in and do the best we can each year, and eventually the deserving players will get in.

I can see this point of view, but if a player is only pushed out of the Hall of Fame because of a number limit, what's the difference in letting the player in for 2011 or making him wait until 2013 when there aren't as many qualified candidates? It doesn't matter to me either way, but if we trust the Hall of Fame voters to vote for anyone at all into the Hall of Fame, we should be able to trust them to vote the right players in for induction if the limit was temporarily raised.

2. After the Super Bowl, Jay Mariotti just went ahead and predicted a dynasty for the Saints. You know, why the hell not? They won one Super Bowl, they probably will win 2-3 more, right?

It isn't a bandwagon we're jumping on. It's a Mardi Gras float, a wave of confidence that dares to suggest that the New Orleans Saints, a team that wasn't supposed to win the Super Bowl unless the apocalypse arrived, might win another one next year.

No one ever said the Saints shouldn't/couldn't win the Super Bowl. Ever. No one said this. Ever.

Let's create a false assumption and then disprove it! Now Jay Mariotti is stealing from Jemele Hill.

"I think I could kiss him right now,'' gushed Saints owner Tom Benson, whose standing in New Orleans was saved by Payton and Brees after he was vilified four years ago for threatening to move the team after Hurricane Katrina.

It's funny how Super Bowl success makes us forget the few asshole things Tom Benson has done while owning the Saints. Amazing isn't it?

We've watches several accomplished coaches -- Mike Ditka, Jim Mora, Bum Phillips, Wade Phillips and Hank Stram among them -- take over the Saints and not come close to what Payton has achieved in four astonishingly quick seasons.

Payton's astonishing record in his 4 seasons with the Saints:

2006: 10-6
2007: 7-9
2008: 8-8
2009: 13-3

Two playoff appearances in four years. Good, but not astonishing.

It's stunning enough that he has transformed a hopeless losing culture into a rousing success.

The Saints record for the 4 seasons before Payton arrived:

2002: 9-7
2003: 8-8
2004: 8-8
2005: 3-13

For Payton, 8-8 is astonishing in the eyes of Mariotti, but 8-8 prior to Payton's arrival is a "hopeless losing culture." I think it is funny how other than the Super Bowl year with Payton and the 3-13 in 2005, the records for the 3 years before Payton and 3 years while Payton is coaching the Saints is exactly 25-23 in both cases. I know it is tough to exclude those two years, but is also a bit misleading to call Payton's 4 year record "astonishing" while calling the 4 years before Payton as having a "hopeless losing culture."

but Payton put the Saints in position to win with the greatest play call in the game's 44-year history.

Possibly overstating this a little bit? It was a great call, but was it the best in the history of the Super Bowl?

A hot name at the time as offensive coordinator of the Dallas Cowboys, he easily could have passed on the job when general manager Mickey Loomis offered it. He chose to embrace the challenge.

The challenge of a team that was 28-36 the 4 years prior to his arrival. It's not like he turned the Lions around or anything. This was a team that hadn't had Super Bowl success, but wasn't a terrible team, except for the 2005 season...which not-coincidentally was the year the team was uprooted by Hurricane Katrina.

Also interested were the Green Bay Packers. He grabbed the Saints job.

Revisionist history by Mariotti. He didn't grab the Saints job, he didn't get the Packers job and the Saints were the only other team offering him a head coaching job at the time. It made the choice fairly easy for him.

Once the laughingstock of the NFL, the Saints have become a destination because of Payton. They'll lose some free agents, but as long as Brees is healthy and his receivers and running backs are in place, they'll be a contender in an NFC that isn't as robust as the AFC.

As long as those receivers and running backs are in place the Saints should be fine, right Jay Mariotti? It's not the Saints defense that won them this title was it? The same defense that wasn't good when the Saints were 8-8 the previous year...the same year the Saints had much of the same offense in place? Of course, it's just the offense this team needs. Don't worry about that defense at all.

It is Sean Payton's miracle. And at age 46, he might be just starting.

I hate it when the "dynasty" talk comes up after a team wins 1 Super Bowl. Also, Jay Mariotti is an idiot.

3. Let's get some Jay Mariotti Olympic idiocy as well. The same week he came out in supporting Tiger Woods, he says Bode Miller hasn't redeemed himself yet.

He continues to be a shallow-minded hypocrite and anti-Olympic buffoon, even more so with three additional medals around his neck, one of gold.

Better than being a buffoon with a computer and an opinion, right Jay?

Bode Miller says he now wants to embrace the "passion" and "inspiration'' of the Games, yet he's bothered by the "corruption" and "money'' -- which, of course, any athlete could say about any sport if he chooses to be a rebel without a clue.

Or he could actually be concerned about the corruption and money.

This was the ideal opportunity to make amends for his despicable behavior four years ago at the Turin Games. The assumption was that Miller would fade away as a punchline and wasted talent, but somehow, after pondering retirement, he ignored a beat-up body, including an ankle sprain suffered in December during a volleyball game, and showed up again in the competition he despises.

I am not a Bode Miller fan or anything, but doesn't the fact he matured and won 3 medals mean this should be a good story and not a "this guy doesn't deserve redemption" story?

No one, that is, except Bode himself. Pathetically, he keeps on baffling us with his b.s., trying to embrace the good in the Games while still painting himself as a more subdued counterculturist who doesn't like the accompanying greed. Look, a lot of us don't like corporate America and the way it operates, but that doesn't mean we lash out at it while reaping the benefits.

Exactly. What successful person has ever criticized society and the way that society runs while still living in the society? Other than pretty much any person who ever made a significant change to society of course. The way a person gets credibility to suggest changes and the way a person's words actually mean something is if that person lives in the society he criticizes. It shows he/she actually wants change to be made.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't marching the streets of Tijuana or some other foreign country in support of better civil rights in the United States was he? No, he was in the heart of cities with racism protesting in an attempt to make life better for others. It's how change is made.

If Mariotti took his own advice, he would not participate in the coverage of the Winter Olympics in Canada because he was so critical of their handling of the death of the luger a few weeks ago. If he wasn't a hypocrite of course.

Instead, he continues to devalue the worth of a gold medal, which demeans the purest objective of the Olympics -- to train for years and beat the world's best competition -- and insults the pride of other athletes who've worked so hard to be here. Who is Bode Miller to look down his nose at a gold medal, then smile and wave during a flower ceremony after winning a gold medal?

I think it is possible for Miller to enjoy winning a gold medal and still hate the commercialism of the Olympics.

"That was the feeling I've been searching for, and I let it build up. I was real nervous before I went, but excited-nervous, not anxiety-nervous," he said. "Normally as an athlete, a veteran of 400 World Cup races, you kind of repress that stuff. I used to crash all the time because of it. But I think that's part of why I wanted to come back."

He came back to get excited-nervous?

No, idiot. He came back for the adrenaline rush of racing down the hill and redeeming himself for past mistakes. This "excited-nervous" is something athletes feel right before they start competing. It's obvious he was trying to redeem himself or at least forget some of the mistakes he made in the past. Apparently Jay Mariotti doesn't like this.

4. Mike Freeman wants us to think about Donte' Stallworth's victim, which he doesn't believe people are doing.

Reyes is the forgotten figure in the Stallworth tragedy, continuing to unfold coldly and uncomfortably right before our catatonic eyes. Reyes was walking to a bus stop on his way home from a construction job at 7:15 a.m. in March 2009 when Stallworth, legally drunk at the time, struck Reyes with his vehicle and killed him.

I think what has caused less uproar about Stallworth is that Reyes apparently broke the law by crossing the street NOT at a crosswalk and there were other circumstances that have caused less uproar about Stallworth's return to the NFL.

Stallworth, meanwhile, fared much better. He was indeed suspended by the NFL for an entire season yet, incredibly, sentenced to just 30 days in prison for manslaughter.

I can't get how Plaxico Burress gets 2 years in prison for shooting himself in the leg but Stallworth got 30 days for manslaughter. I thought the sentence was too light...but no one does seem to care that much.

The most interesting aspect of this ugly case is the lack of attention and outrage it has generated. It seemed the media and sports fans were more concerned about who Tiger Woods was boinking than Baltimore signing Stallworth.

Absolutely, it is amazing to me how few media members and others aren't interested in this case. Mike Vick killed dogs, and I like animals more than humans so just know that, but there was a constant debate over whether he should be allowed back in the NFL. Stallworth kills a human and no one seems to care. Hell, Peter King views it as a redemption of sorts for Stallworth to even be signed by an NFL team. If you remember, he basically was fawning over Stallworth in his MMQB this past week. I don't get how it is a redemption really.

This time, post-Stallworth, the reaction was quiet and there was more examination over whether Stallworth could help the Ravens rather than if he should be allowed back in the NFL in the first place.

Peter has referred to Stallworth previously as "learning his lesson" and indicating he feels Stallworth has redeemed himself through charity activities. Then this week, instead of questioning why Stallworth could even sign with a team, he only talked about how fast Stallworth's 40 yard dash time was on a slow surface.

Again, Stallworth deserves another opportunity to rebuild his life but when you kill a man, professional football should be out of the question. It's disingenuous (at best) when Newsome says Stallworth paid a significant price. Stallworth paid a very minor one.

I absolutely agree. I know Mario Reyes wasn't in the crosswalk, which apparently is an offense punishable by death now, but he was still a pedestrian and Stallworth hit him with his car, while legally drunk. I don't get how being legally drunk and hitting a pedestrian is only worth 30 days in prison. I guess it was the old "I flashed my headlights at him" defense that paid off for him.

Granted, Stallworth has paid the price for his crime, I just don't think it was a very high price for the crime. In a world where Tiger Woods cheating on his wife and Mike Vick killing animals are seen as higher crimes by the media, what does that say though?

5. There are two different trains of thought in the world regarding 2010 free agency in the NBA. The first train of thought wonders what would happen if a bunch of free agents teamed up on one team. The second train of thought thinks this is not realistic. Gene Wojciechowski is the spokesperson for this first team.

How rich is LeBron James? Put it this way: When God needs some walking-around money, he borrows it from LBJ.

Boo!!! You're a hack.

And although Chris Bosh isn't in the same endorsement orbit as King James and D-Wade, he's still pushing $60 million in career salary earnings. So it's not as if Bosh is ordering the 89-cent, five-layer burrito from Denise.

(Throwing fruit at Gene from the crowd and then Bengoodfella steps up his game and starts throwing knives at him.)

All that could change if James, Wade and Bosh decide to put dynasties over dollars, basketball legacies over bank accounts. They just need a dotted line and some stones as big as the ones in Olympic curling.

"What these players should do is prove they are among the greatest players in the history of the NBA by teaming up with other great players to win championships so that way people can dismiss any titles won by a Wade/James/Bosh team as caused by their alliance on the same team and not their individual skill."

If there is anything less attractive to a basketball player like LeBron James and Dwayne Wade than sharing the spotlight and possibly not getting credit for a championship won, I can't think of it right now. Remember how bad Kobe Bryant wanted to win an NBA Title without Shaq? Exactly, so why would two (three? Is Bosh in there?) of the game's best players voluntarily try to have his legacy tied up to another great player? Remember, Wade already has a championship with Shaq, and you are naive if you don't believe he wants to win one on his own.

So not only does it not make sense for James/Wade/Bosh to team up from the point of view in regard to enhancing each of the player's legacy on championship teams and their standing in the hierarchy of the greatest NBA players of all-time...it doesn't really make financial sense either. One or two of the three players would have to take less money than he could get on the open market.

That's not even including the fact three alpha players on one team, with all three players in their prime, would probably not work. Remember Shaq and Kobe? What about Shaq, Kobe, and Iverson? How would that go?

As ridiculous as it sounds, there exists a scenario in which these three guys could play on the same team and win championships happily ever after starting next season.

Maybe they would win a championship or two, but I question how "happily" they would do this and how long this situation could last.

Without going all capology on you, it looks as though next season's projected salary cap will be between $50.4 million and $53.6 million.

Right now, the Knicks are on the hook for only $18.6 million in contracts next season. The Nets are committed to just $26.6 million worth of deals, while the Heat are at $30.7 million, the Bulls at $31.9 million, the Clippers at $33.5 million, the Kings at $33.9 million and the T-Wolves at $35.2 million.

Most likely none of these teams could afford these three players if they got maxed out contracts. They would have to take a pay cut of some type to be on the team and the team will have trouble adding any other players for a few years down the road.

The numbers could change by July, but at least this gives you an idea of who has the most money to make a run at one of the great unrestricted free-agent classes in NBA history.

Without taking less money for 1 or 2 of these players? No one.

I'd ditch them. If you're really serious about creating a brand and a basketball legacy, do something that's never been done before. Don't max out; min out.

The basketball legacy wouldn't be LeBron James winning an NBA Title, but LeBron James winning an NBA Title with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh. Then the legacy will be that Dwayne Wade needs one of the top 20 players of all-time on his team to win an NBA Title and so does LeBron James. This isn't the legacy either player wants.

But if James, Wade and Bosh truly want to make history, they could do the unthinkable and split the Knicks' $33 million three ways. It would cost them salary money, but can you imagine how much they'd make on the back end if they started reeling in NBA titles? In New York?

I hope Gene understands players also care about their own personal legacy and players like Bosh, Wade, and James have basketball skills that could very likely conflict with each other. Who gets the last shot on a team with Wade and James? Figure in Bosh on that team as well. You think Wade wants to be a sidekick? Because LeBron James sure as hell won't be one. I am also pretty confident Chris Bosh doesn't want to be a third option. NBA players want to win a championship but there is a limit to how far they will go to do so, especially at such a early part of their career.

Three singular players who know careers are defined by championships, not just checkbooks.

Three players who also understand how Kobe and Shaq's time together with the Lakers winning 3 NBA Titles was perceived. Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen, he didn't need a Top 20 player to win an NBA Title. You don't think LeBron James thinks about this? I guarantee you he does.

I think this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.

6. Now Jemele Hill (of all people) speaks with the point of view I agree on, that this group of three guys won't work well together.

But what I can't take is the idea that the NBA would be better off if LeBron and D-Wade or LeBron and Bosh, or some combination of the three, wind up playing together. Sometimes, it feels as if fans want the NBA to become "Super Friends." Even though Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman were far more compelling individually than together.

Even though I am not sure I like the comic book reference, I agree with JemeHill. It is exciting to think how good a team with these three players on it would be, but I don't know long-term how this would work.

The assumption seems to be that two or three megastars on one team is a good thing. But I can't think of a more boring setup.

Agreed. She is taking a different look than the one I have taken, she focuses more on how this move isn't good for the NBA, but I agree with it in principle. I also don't think these three players could play well together for long.

The idea that the NBA needs several superstars on one team is misguided. Every superstar needs help, of course. But it's working for the NBA to have LeBron, D-Wade and Bosh (admittedly, a lower-wattage star than Wade and LeBron) in their respective cities, each competing separately for a championship.

I don't even really care about the parity of the NBA, though it is more exciting when James and Wade are on separate teams. I care more about the fact it doesn't really make sense in many fashions to team these players up.

And although Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett came together to win a championship in Boston in 2008, they were complementary pieces rather than individual superstars who could singularly carry a team the way LeBron, Wade and Bosh have.

I would argue those players were individual superstars before coming to the Celtics and Pierce was still a borderline superstar in 2008. I don't think I would call these three players necessarily "complementary pieces" in 2008 though.

Jordan is considered the greatest because he won six titles with teams consisting primarily of him, plus role players. Had he ever paired with another superstar, he might not have been looked upon as invincible.

That's my point. This is a perception that NBA players care about too. This is not just the protesting of a guy who just absolutely loves parity or anything.

If LeBron and Wade or some of the others wind up on the same team, how will we measure their greatness? How can we ever know what they were truly capable of as individuals?

This is the question these players have in their mind, which is why I don't think they would ever team up.

Kobe was/is criticized sharply for playing a role in the Lakers' split with Shaq. But there's no question that had he not won a title without the big man, he never would have been in the conversation with Jordan as one of the greatest players ever.

Kobe earned a lot of credit for winning an NBA Title without Shaq. He may have still been considered one of the greatest players ever, but not with as much enthusiasm as he is considered in that way now. I don't think James, Bosh, and Wade on one team could or would ever work.

7. Mike Freeman does some athlete bashing and this time it is Dwight Howard he goes after. I have been critical of Howard in the past because he doesn't have an offensive arsenal of shots and he doesn't WANT to be the best player on his own team...at least in my mind.

No matter his alleged offensive improvement, Howard continues to be the most frustrating player in the NBA and maybe all of sports.

I think Shaq has set a new standard for centers in the NBA and how we think they should perform. He had an obvious physical advantage over other players and still developed as a player...except at the free throw line (I still say he should have tried to shoot free throws granny-style. It is embarrassing, yes, but if it helps it would be worth it). It's just my hypothesis, but I think if Shaq had never come along, then we would be happy with Dwight Howard's progress. Shaq was essentially Howard when he came in the league. He could dunk and had a very limited offensive game, then Shaq worked on his footwork and created some (awkward at times) shots in his arsenal. Howard really doesn't have this. I have watched quite a few Orlando Magic games this year and he looks the same to me as he did last year.

Howard deserves credit for attempting to diversify his offensive game with more front looks and handsomer jumpers, yet he still doesn't look drastically different.

But around the basket, I don't like Howard's moves. They are just very basic in my opinion.

He might be demanding the ball more but it looks tepid, almost fake, like he's trying to be something he's not.

Howard doesn't even really "demand" the ball. He wants the ball but he is also perfectly happy with another player taking the last shot of the game. This hasn't changed this year at all. Against Boston earlier this year, Rashard Lewis took the last shot, it wasn't Howard who seemed to want the ball in his hands.

"Kevin Garnett has been in this league forever and he's won six playoff series in his career," Van Gundy said. "Dwight's won four and he's [24] years old. That's a pretty good comparison. Why is Kevin Garnett a great winner and Dwight Howard's not?

That's not the issue. The issue is whether Howard wants to get better and whether he has that hunger to win that great players seem to have. Garnett had that hunger and he seemed to maximize his potential, even if he did seem to shrink from the ball at the end of the game a little bit.

Many times, Howard will be the biggest and strongest on the floor, so he's going to get his points and rebounds.

If only Howard were hungrier, he might already have much more.

Exactly. Howard isn't a bad basketball player, he is going to get his points and rebounds. It's just when the game is on the line or when an old, out of shape center (Shaq) calls him out and steps up to him, Howard doesn't step up his game on the floor.

8. Bill Simmons wrote an article about the NBA that I very much agree with. I care about the NBA and I really believe he has a few good points that he makes.

It's about Jermaine O'Neal making more money this season than Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Eric Maynor, Thabo Sefolosha and Jeff Green combined.

It's about Tracy McGrady making $22.4 million, being unhappy coming off the bench, then convincing his team to let him disappear until it traded him.

It's about Jamaal Tinsley getting paid $10.6 million this season and the next by Indiana not to play there.

Really, these are mistakes made by poor General Managers but they are an example of a greater problem Bill describes well in this column. The finances of the NBA have been screwed up over the past couple years and I don't know if it is getting any better.

Just in the past three years, we've seen general managers Sam Presti (Zombie Sonics), Daryl Morey (Rockets) and John Hammond (Bucks) build competitive teams by prudently watching their cap, searching for bargains, building around young talent and picks, and/or carving out enough cap space to take advantage of desperate suitors who will pay with draft picks or young players just to dump an unsavory contract.

I can't help but recall there was a time when Bill Simmons was wanting to be the General Manager for the Milwaukee Bucks and after Hammond got hired Simmons indicated Hammond may not be the best guy for the job. He won't talk about that of course. Naturally. Who wants to focus on his bid to be an NBA GM for the Bucks and then it turns out the man who was hired actually seems to be competent?

Why should either of us care that owners might not lose as much money in 2013 as they did in 2010?

Does it mean ticket prices will drop? I doubt it.

Does it mean franchises with older arenas aren't in danger of having their team hijacked like the Sonics were stolen from Seattle? I doubt it.

Does it mean failing teams won't continue to tank down the stretch for lottery picks, or dump some of their best players to contenders for 40 cents on the dollar to save a few bucks? I doubt it.

Great points. I won't quote anymore of the column, because I think if you like(d) the NBA, it is worth reading in its entirety. The problem with the NBA is there are people who love basketball who don't watch the NBA for a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with the product on the floor. I am not saying it makes perfect sense.

Quick personal story to help better explain...I desperately try to hang on to my love for the NBA. I watch as many games as I can. Often times with teams dumping salaries and trading players for no competitive reason, it doesn't feel like the NBA is a basketball league, but a league where amateur General Managers learn how not to run an organization. I find it to be a hard league to understand and an even more difficult league to embrace for many people. My fiance loves watching college basketball. She watches games without me and tells me about them in vivid detail. "That fucking Brian Zoubek" may be a phrase used in our wedding vows. She can't get into the NBA, except to watch my favorite team play. What's worse is that she doesn't hate it, but she is indifferent towards it. I find indifference worse than hatred, at least for a sport, because that sport isn't even relevant in a person's mind when there is indifference felt towards it.

I have two good friends who were obsessed with the NBA and they live 15 miles from where the Bobcats play, but their interest has decreased. These are people very interested in basketball as a sport. Now, I don't think my friends encompass the attitude of everyone, I am just using them as an example. College basketball is different from NBA basketball, but it is still basketball, so naturally I would think a person who likes one could at least understand the other. I know there are people who don't like college basketball, but many times it is because the quality of play is lower. I can see that reasoning, but it doesn't make sense how someone who likes the lower quality of play in college basketball doesn't like the NBA. The excitement about the NBA just doesn't happen for many casual fans and I think that is where the NBA is struggling, they can't get the casual fan interested and the way certain teams are being run I can see even diehard NBA fans being turned off at some point. It sounds like I (or Bill) is trying to be dramatic but trades where a guy like Antawn Jamison goes to the Cavs for essentially nothing are commonplace and it can't be good for the game.

Anyway, I enjoyed Bill's article.

9. John Feinstein takes ESPN to task for the Tony Kornheiser situation. I don't necessarily like Kornheiser but Feinstein has an interesting take on the situation since he used to be on "Sports Reporters" and had a sort of falling out with ESPN. Feinstein is a Kornheiser apologist but overall I thought this was an interesting read.

10. Anyone interested in a fantasy baseball league? I am kind of torn but I promise this would be a league where there is more trash talking done. If anyone is interested, do you prefer the head-to-head leagues or the leagues where it is a points based system (I am forgetting the name right now)? I don't care either way. If anyone is interested, I can get a league going, and I promise there will be more talking in this one than there was in the other fantasy leagues. I am limiting the amount of leagues I am involved with, which will help tremendously.