All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. It's always been uneasy when black players end up in situations that have them referring to "my owner." It'd be really bad if they were southerners in seersucker suits; fortunately they're mostly just old Jews who own real estate. It happens now and then because I guess you have your coach and your GM and then up the line is the guy who owns the organization. It's a peculiarity of pro sports' outsize ownership roles and the organizational hierarchy/loyalty/etc. In no small business would you call the proprietor "my owner." He'd just be your boss. But this is still some quality Neoliberal Basketball Association stuff. It's funny enough that insisting on calling the ruthless billionaire owners "Executive Managing Chairmen" or whatever doesn't materially change the reality of them owning the teams, but my favorite part is that when people pushed back, the league said "well actually we've already been doing this all along so we really never did anything wrong in the first place." Okay great! Jerry Reinsdorf still sucks no matter what you want to label him.
  3. I'm willing to bet that what lies under the surface here is memories of the people like Donald Sterling pulled, which might also be prompting the push.
  4. Oh really now, And this one from Adam Cain
  5. Race relations are not at an all-time low, just for the record. An all-time low would be for instance the 1960s when riots were commonplace and America was literally being torn apart. What you mean to say is that things have gotten worse (in your eyes) instead of better over the last few years. I can agree with that to a degree. But from most of the people I speak to, the average person doesn't care about all of this stuff, frankly. They want to see good basketball. What truly happened to evoke this change is that many of the players (along with influencial people among the ranks) decided this term was offensive. The NBA has been majority black for longer than a decade, but suddenly this became an issue this season. They have the right to have their own opinions and express this, but the league doesn't have to agree to change it. In their eyes, they wanted to change something and they did, but even if you completely remove the term, it will never disappear. The NBA is the most sensetive league among the big four, mainly due to the league being majority black. I can understand them being offended by the term, but at the same time, I think every fan would agree that this is not the conversation to be having right now. Words in themselves become offensive when someone decides they are offensive. Year from now we could see the term "national" be offensive because it seemingly "excludes" nations who don't have teams. Any word or term can become "offensive" with enough pressure. Back when Chief Wahoo was removed (prior to this season), I overheard an intresting conversation about the Indians at Starbucks. Two white guys seemed to be offended over the term "Indian" still being a part of the name. This is of course, despite the fact that American Indian is the correct name (the smithsonian museme refers to their museme dedicated to these people as American Indian, instead of Native American). Despite this, these two guys were offended by the name. You decide what you are offended by. There is no black or white on this issue. Everything in itself is offense and non-offensive in the same instance. It's just if people agree that it is offensive. The fans who I know do not see any issue with the "owner" term remaining. They just have an issue with Golden State constantly being in the Finals. The entire AD affair was laughable and an embarassment to the league, but instead of stepping in and working to correct this issue. The players don't seem to want collusion to be dealt with, perhaps because those with the most power in the league are the ones benefiting. I find it intresting that one of the most outspoken players on this issue (Draymond Green) is a player on a team that is often cited as an example of everything wrong with the modern NBA. Despite all of this, I would still label it pure pandering to change the name because of a select group of players and activists who voiced their opinions. There is no poll that's been taken among players or fans to decide if the term is offensive to the "majority". You're simply taking it on their word. That doesn't mean very much in the large picture. This is because in both of these situations the "owners" are not individuals, they are large holding companies. There is a large difference between a huge company like the two you mentioned (who in turn is owned by a larger holding) and an owner of a professional sports team. Business structures are completely different (i.e. a sports team is nearly always privately owned by individuals, while companies are owned by a larger amount of individuals who usually don't have controlling interest) and often you do hear about the owners of companies making decisons. I'm based in the financial sector so I have different exposure and a different understanding, but there is a huge difference between companies and teams. The amount of ownership held by a majority shareholder in a sports team is usually higher than the amount of ownership in a company. Owners of sports teams are more prevelant because they are the face of their franchise. Illicth was known as not only the Tigers/Wings owner but also as the owner of Little Caesers, and he was quite prevelant in both fields. In casual chat people often say "Oh yeah, my dad owns a store down the block" or "His uncle owns a pharmacy". They're majority owned by them
  6. So, are you going to do concepts for the new teams or just show us that the NFL can expand?
  7. It's so ridiculous that it's almost like it's some sort of negotiating gambit where they don't actually expect to get two stadiums.
  8. Easy, he doesn't want to put up ANY money to build a new stadium. He wants the taxpayers to do it all because "it's a public entity and they should pay for it". He has more than enough money to build a stadium for the Rays. I think Montreal will pay for a stadium and in 2028, we'll have a new Expos.
  9. Late to the discussion, but this is an absolutely stupid idea.
  10. It does look better with a darker green. Not sure I like the all-green road striping part better, but I gave it a shot: Thank you for your feedback!
  11. Congrats bro... What you’re saying is that the 4 teams that play in the conference final should all get division champs banners. I’m saying that can’t always work, because of the wildcard system. A team might be playing in the opposite division the way the chips fall. That’s why the Avs were playing against teams like the Flames and Sharks. And since they won in the first round, if they had then won the second against the Sharks, they would be the Pacific division champs, despite playing in the Central, which would be ridiculous...
  12. Today
  13. This was my first thought. This "owner" controversy was something that I had never heard about it until I saw people being weird about the change on the internet. You could have quietly made the change and most people wouldn't have even thought twice about it if they had even noticed that it happened. Do we think that?
  14. It’s not an official logo, unfortunately (at least they’ve never announced it as such). They started using it here and there a few years ago, but have used it pretty sparingly since then. It’s not even used on merch as far as I’m aware. I was pretty disappointed to not see them make it an official alternate logo when they unveiled their updated logos back in 2017.
  15. He's disallowing the use of the term owner internally in regards to the NBA. The desire he's expressing has the full weight and power of his position and will be enforced. ESPN is already acquiescing. He's not making suggestions he's implanting new policy a.k.a the term "owner" is not allowed to be used any longer. Please help me to understand how the word ban is a misrepresentation of the new initiative.
  16. I swear at this point, The Maple Leafs are going to hang a banner celebrating that they made it past the 1st round of the playoffs, when it happens.
  17. So If I'm understanding this right; The Rays, a team that can't even get a new stadium built in 1 city, are demanding that 2 cities build them a new stadiums?
  18. The Buffaslug kinda looks like Donald Trump’s hairdo.
  19. Oh okay. The filter on his post made the blue look teal.
  20. Bet this is something none of you have heard of, but here's my idea for NFL Expansion. The eventual goal of this would be to add one more team to each division. I see this as feasible, after the failure of the AAF, it seems as if the NFL is unstoppable. This would eliminate the need for drastic re-alignments. On the map, the expansion cities are in BOLD. The cities, team names (for some), and explanations will be in the next post.
  21. Right. I am not doubting that he is smarmy huckster. I was saying only that he did not come off like one in this press conference. He obviously knows how to present himself.
  22. Yeah, Stu is a scumbag who doesn’t want to use any amount of his money for a stadium. Don’t let some press conference fool you. He’s adopted the Bob Lurie approach, not wishing to spend any significant percentage of his own money to complete a stadium deal. Heck, I’d argue that he’s worse than Lurie, since Lurie at least tried to work more extensively with city officials throughout the Bay Area to get a deal done (him not knowing that Bay Area voters don’t like paying directly for stadiums is his own fault). Pulling a Frank McCourt on Donald Sterling with Stu would be in baseball’s best interests.
  23. We chewed a lot of Betel Nut and Cosmic Cookies!
  1. Load more activity

  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up