PDA

View Full Version : Someone needs a diaper change - Allen Iverson refuses to play


mary
03-14-2004, 07:42 PM
ABC: 76ERS@PISTONS Sun., 1:00 PM ET


Associated Press
AUBURN HILLS, Mich. -- Allen Iverson said he was ready to play in Sunday's 85-69 loss to the Detroit Pistons but changed his mind after 76ers coach Chris Ford told him he'd come off the bench.


"I'm a starter. I've been a starter here for eight years. I'm not a sixth man," Iverson said after the game. "I'm a starter. I know in this league ... if someone comes back from an injury, if he's a starter he starts. What's the difference? If you're going to cut my time down, cut my time down. It doesn't make any difference. I'm a starter."


Iverson has been hampered by a swollen right knee, which caused him to miss three straight games before Sunday. The league's second-leading scorer participated in the shootaround before the game but was on the Sixers' bench in street clothes at tip-off.


After the game, he said he "was already taped and everything and had my uniform on. I had to take it back off, so that was rough."


"I feel real disappointed because I told the trainers I was going to play," Iverson said. "He (Ford) said I hadn't run up and down the court, and he wasn't sure about my conditioning."


Ford and Iverson have had a rocky relationship since the coach replaced the fired Randy Ayers on Feb. 9.


"I didn't know he was going to attempt to play until how much time was left on the (pre-game) clock? Not much," Ford said. "From my understanding and what I was told yesterday after his workout, I'm going to look out for A.I. and the team. Somebody's got to make decisions around here."

Chiwas
03-14-2004, 08:42 PM
"Somebody's got to make decisions around here." -Ford"Sorry, Starter, but the chief is right.

Murphy3
03-14-2004, 09:15 PM
Allen Iverson represents just about everything that is wrong with the NBA. The league would be a much better place if he were not in it. He drives more people away from the game than what he brings to it in my opinion.

kg_veteran
03-15-2004, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
Allen Iverson represents just about everything that is wrong with the NBA. The league would be a much better place if he were not in it. He drives more people away from the game than what he brings to it in my opinion.

Exactly.

It's abundantly clear what is most important to Allen Iverson.

dirno2000
03-15-2004, 10:27 AM
While Iverson has put himself in this position, I think Chris Ford was the A-hole in this situation. If your star player can play he starts, end of story. Cut his minutes if you have to, but trying to assert some sort of superficial dominance by bringing him off the bench is just asking for trouble. Then again, thatís probably what Ford wanted. I think heís trying to force Billy Kingís hand in the off-season.

As far as Iverson being bad for the league, where do you see that? Philly typically draws well on the road despite the fact that theyíre usually a mediocre team. AIís jersey always sells well, especially with kids. The networks show way too many of the 76íers games, which leads me to believe that people are tuning in. Love him or hate him, but AI is a cash cow.

kg_veteran
03-15-2004, 10:32 AM
While Iverson has put himself in this position, I think Chris Ford was the A-hole in this situation. If your star player can play he starts, end of story. Cut his minutes if you have to, but trying to assert some sort of superficial dominance by bringing him off the bench is just asking for trouble. Then again, thatís probably what Ford wanted. I think heís trying to force Billy Kingís hand in the off-season.

If I was Ford, I'd try to force King's hand, too. I wouldn't want to coach such a detestable player.


As far as Iverson being bad for the league, where do you see that? Philly typically draws well on the road despite the fact that theyíre usually a mediocre team. AIís jersey always sells well, especially with kids. The networks show way too many of the 76íers games, which leads me to believe that people are tuning in. Love him or hate him, but AI is a cash cow.

You're speaking in financial terms. I don't think Murphy was. I know I wasn't.

Britney Spears has sold millions of albums. That doesn't mean she's "good for music".

Bayliss
03-15-2004, 10:33 AM
Kudos to Ford. Unfortunately, even with management backing, I'm not sure he'll "win" this one. The only way Ford will win is if the 76ers trade Iverson. I think they have to look at trading him just to free up some "potential" with that team. One star teams do not go anywhere, and in order for the 76ers to get back to the level of play in the 80's they need to

A) Groom Dalembert
The kid is going to be the best defensive big man in a couple of years. Since he's on my fantasy team I watch him quite often, and he reminds me of a quicker, taller, but not as strong Ben Wallace. The kid never stops running, and is constantly contesting shots and going after boards. If he ever develops an offensive game he would become the 2nd best big man in the East (behind O'Neal).

B) Keep Salmons/Korver/etc
The youth movement is now. Salmons is Aaron McKie. A younger version that is perhaps more durable, if given the time he would become a capable swingmen roleplayer. Korver will find his niche in the NBA. Unless he proves me wrong and develops more rapidly he will probably end up as a Kerr, Curry type player. But paired with a superstar he could be a great assest. Just ask Tim Duncan about the value of outside shooting.

C) Trade Iverson for Draft/Good Players
The team needs to get a top 5 pick. They can't squeak into the playoffs, get ousted immediately, then draft in the mid first round and hope to land someone good. Getting "value" for Iverson isn't the main priority. Getting a quality mid-level player (a la Richard Hamilton), and a high draft pick is key.

(There are probably more but that's the main 3 off the top of my head. And if Stephen A Smith would ever shut up and look at the roster and watch their games he would realize there is talent on this team. But it goes to waste with Iverson. This team has beaten Minny and SA without AI.)

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 10:34 AM
Where do I see it? He's just one of a long list of thugs that pushes alot of people away from the game. Sure, he brings alot in, but I see no reason not to believe that he doesn't push even more away. He is a loser. It's not all about how many fans he brings to the arena in his particular city. It has to do with how many people he just turns away from the game in general. He did alot to keep me away from the game his first couple of seasons in the league.

dirno2000
03-15-2004, 10:54 AM
If I was Ford, I'd try to force King's hand, too. I wouldn't want to coach such a detestable player.

I'm not saying Ford was wrong. Itís already apparent that thereís no way Ford can be successful with Iverson on that team. It's a good career move; I'm just saying that his excuse for not starting Iverson is pretty lame.


You're speaking in financial terms. I don't think Murphy was. I know I wasn't.

Britney Spears has sold millions of albums. That doesn't mean she's "good for music"

I don't think she's bad for music. She's not my cup of tea, but I can easily avoid her and find what I consider "good music". She's great for her label and music television networks so I guess it all depends on your perspective.

I would argue that AI fattening the league coffers is good for the league. The NBA exist solely to make money; now and in the future. Iverson is bringing in revenues now, and because of his appeal to kids, he's doing his part insure the future well being of the league. Sure he turns some people off, but if you're an NBA fan, youíll still watch NBA games.

That being said, I wouldn't want him on my team. I'm just saying that you need villains as well as heroes.

kg_veteran
03-15-2004, 11:11 AM
dirno - Point taken. As for Ford's excuse, it was weak, but it's clear he's in a power struggle with Iverson, and each is trying to force the other's hand.

Here's hoping that Iverson lands in Atlanta or somesuch.

OutletPass
03-15-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Dirno2000:

you need villains as well as heroes.
Well, Philly could send him to Memphis and Hubie. If the geezer can rehabiltate JWill he can probably rehabilitate anyone.

Mama, please don't let your babies grow up to be heroes...i/expressions/musicnote.gif

Chiwas
03-15-2004, 11:47 AM
Nellie would love to have Iverson.

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 01:05 PM
he may appeal to some kids but he definitely doesn't appeal to the white male...the NBA doesn't do a good job at all with marketing to the white male. Sure, they want kids, but they'd gladly trade in a few thugs like AI and Rasheed Wallace or whoever in exchange for the ability to market to the white male.

dirno2000
03-15-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
he may appeal to some kids but he definitely doesn't appeal to the white male...the NBA doesn't do a good job at all with marketing to the white male. Sure, they want kids, but they'd gladly trade in a few thugs like AI and Rasheed Wallace or whoever in exchange for the ability to market to the white male.

Next time you go to the AAC take a look around. Believe me, the white male is well represented. Somebody's telling them about the games.

kg_veteran
03-15-2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by: Chiwas
Nellie would love to have Iverson.

I'll always be a Mavericks fan, but I have to admit that I'd have a hard time rooting for any team with Allen Iverson on it.

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 01:58 PM
I go to the AAC often enough. Using the Mavs as an example is probably not the best team to use. They are one of the 'whiter' teams in the NBA.

dirno2000
03-15-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
I go to the AAC often enough. Using the Mavs as an example is probably not the best team to use. They are one of the 'whiter' teams in the NBA.

You're right, when I watch Trail Blazer games I never see white men in the stands.

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 02:04 PM
I didn't say that there's not any white men in the crowds. I'm saying that basketball isn't by any means the sport of choice for white males. Why? Well, one of the biggest reasons is thugs like Iverson.

sturm und drang
03-15-2004, 07:42 PM
Murphy's right: the NBA does an atrocious job marketing to whites. It's not about attendance at the games; that's laughably irrelevant. As with baseball and football, it's ALL about television revenue. Without TV money, the league is instantly dead.

NBA television viewership is at an all-time low. It consistently gets beat by such "second-tier" sports as NASCAR, golf and college basketball. The league is in for a financial reckoning quite soon, and it won't be pretty. Just look at hockey's impending (as in 2004 - 5) doom: their problem is not game attendance, it's lack of TV viewership.

And yeah, players like Iverson are a huge turn-off to viewers-- just as players like T.O., Keyshawn and Randy Moss are in football. (For all the talent, ink and talk, they're far from the league's most popular players.) Broader fan bases are always built around team-oriented, scrappy effort, give up the ball, "sum is greater than the whole of its parts" efforts. That's why we there's such disproportionate love for Eddie Najera, Duke basketball and the New England Patriots.

Me-first, show-boating, grand-standing, whiny, trash-talking mememe players like Iverson will never drive broader-audience TV viewership. And you're crazy if you don't think Stern doesn't know that: it's been entertaining, at the very least, to watch him try to walk that marketing tightrope the past few years.

kg_veteran
03-15-2004, 07:53 PM
Excellent post, sturm, and spot on.

LRB
03-15-2004, 08:13 PM
Excellent post Sturm. One of the best I've ever read. You've captured exactly the major problem that the NBA faces. Look at the NBA stars of the glory days of the 80's, Bird, Magic, Jordan, etc. Those were highly appealable for a very large spectrum of the population including a large portion of white America. Now take the new thugs like AI, Rasheed, Steve Francis, etc. They have a very narrow forcus on their appeal. Certainly they have white fans, but it's much narrower. I would even say that they don't even have near the breadth in the black community as well.

The NBA is quickly digging itself a grave with by promoting the antisocial type of personalites like AI. For the stunt he pulled he deserves to have his contract voided if his team so wishes. You refuse to play and you've broken a key agreement of that contract. Of course the NBA would never stand for that, and there in is the problem.

mavsman55
03-15-2004, 08:14 PM
There is only one good thing about Allen Iverson. $. True, they don't need him. We've all seen how much better they are without Iverson. They took out the full-strength Lakers team at L.A. earlier in the year, and they recently beat San Antonio on the road too without A.I. There is only setback to getting rid of Iverson. No matter how selfish he is with the ball and how arrogant he is towards his fellow players and the coach, he is their franchise player. He always going to be bringing in a solid revenue just by showing up to home games and by Philly natives watching him play on TV, and by brainwashed fans coming to the games just to see him play. Their team has a lot of good players, the kind of players that will silently kill you... but no full-fledged all-stars. Glenn Robinson is the closest thing they have to an all-star. However, everyone on that team is so unselfish that none of them really stand out. Great players (Thomas, Robinson, Mckie, Korver) but not franchise players. Getting rid of A.I. would be good for the team but bad for the franchise, when you take a step back and look at it.

The biggest plus that would come from getting rid of Iverson would be the trade commodity. There's no way to deny this... no matter how arrogant and cocky the guy is, he's always going to be worth a lot on the trade market. Personally, I think they should keep him because if they put him up for trade, Don Nelson would probably sign him.

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by: sturm und drang
Murphy's right: the NBA does an atrocious job marketing to whites. It's not about attendance at the games; that's laughably irrelevant. As with baseball and football, it's ALL about television revenue. Without TV money, the league is instantly dead.

NBA television viewership is at an all-time low. It consistently gets beat by such "second-tier" sports as NASCAR, golf and college basketball. The league is in for a financial reckoning quite soon, and it won't be pretty. Just look at hockey's impending (as in 2004 - 5) doom: their problem is not game attendance, it's lack of TV viewership.

And yeah, players like Iverson are a huge turn-off to viewers-- just as players like T.O., Keyshawn and Randy Moss are in football. (For all the talent, ink and talk, they're far from the league's most popular players.) Broader fan bases are always built around team-oriented, scrappy effort, give up the ball, "sum is greater than the whole of its parts" efforts. That's why we there's such disproportionate love for Eddie Najera, Duke basketball and the New England Patriots.

Me-first, show-boating, grand-standing, whiny, trash-talking mememe players like Iverson will never drive broader-audience TV viewership. And you're crazy if you don't think Stern doesn't know that: it's been entertaining, at the very least, to watch him try to walk that marketing tightrope the past few years.

Of course I'm right. Why else would I have said it?
i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

Anyways, there's one thing that you touched on that I want to bring into light just a bit more. You touched on it but not in the exact manner in which I had in mind.

While I was taking my puppy to one of his puppy classes, it came to mind what is probably the biggest difference in marketing stratagies between a successful league like the NFL and a league that is struggling a bit like the NBA. While we've already touched on the fact that the NBA has whiney asses such as Iverson and, well basically 50% of the league. Doesn't the NFL have issues with people such as Moss, Owens, and others? Sure, they do, but probably not to the same extent. Then what is the biggest difference between the leagues as far as marketing? Well, it appears that the NBA tries to market the player moreso than the team. In the NFL, it is the exact opposite. Why does the NFL do this? Well, by marketing the team, you can survive in the public's eyes if one of your star players actually gets into some kind of trouble. Why? Because the league markets the teams. Very few individuals have ever been bigger than their team.

The NBA is the exact opposite. The NBA markets the players instead of the team. So, instead of marketing two franchises like the Kings and the Mavs that were incredibly brilliant to watch on the court with their up-tempo and high octane game, the consumers have players such as Iverson and Kobe shoved down our throats. Hell, I bet most people can't even name another player that plays for the Sixers. So, when Iverson gets into trouble, he's looked at as one of a growing list of 'Superstar' bad apples in the NBA. The Sixers are Iverson so he drags the entire team down with him. Why is he the Sixers? Because that's how the NBA markets the game.

Now, an argument can obviously be made that there's less players on each team in Basketball compared to football. Obviously, you're right. Someone may then say that you basically have to market the players instead of the teams because there is so many less players. I ask you "Why?" Why can't the Mavs be marketed primarily as a team? Why can't the Mavs and the Kings get the spotlight when NBC airs their commercials? Why is everything focused on individuals many of which believe they are bigger than their team and sometimes bigger and more important than the league?

Why? Hell, I don't know. If I had all the damn answers, I wouldn't be an accountant.

Jeremiah
03-15-2004, 10:14 PM
I like Iverson as much someone that doesn't really "know" him can, I suppose. I like some of the things he represents. Granted, I naturally think that all baskeball players are less tough than they make themselves out to be, in fact, I sometimes think they are, well, I shoulddn't say that. However, Allen represents hard work, toughness and the little guy. I don't know if he actually fulfills that role, but that certainly is part of his image. And that's a good image to have. He also appears to have a certain sense of perspective that other players don't. He seems to know that he plays a game, and doesn't work in an office or on the highway, or in a coal mine all day. The only other guy that exudes that I know of is Kevin Garnett. Mike Finley, or Peja Stojakovich might have that same perspective, I just don't know that because they don't make that sense public. That's just an aside.
Back to Allen. I think he represents a lot of good things for basketball and for sport in general: hard work, fighting against adversity, and heart. Again, I can't say if he actually fulfills these qualities, but he certainly is portrayed that way.

The spat with his coach about not starting? I don't even know the guy's name, so I'm not even going to try to fabricate that I've been watching the sixers this year. How do we know that he's not a bad coach? Maybe he has the x's and o's, maybe he doesn't, maybe he doesn't motivate well, maybe he just can't command respect. The coach is the coach, and in a perfect world, the athletes respect him and do what he says. The coach said something about he thought the allen was hurt. Well, it seems that allen HAS played hurt, several times. If he can play, I'd say he should start. It doesn't make much sense that he doesn't start. While the argument that they have beaten good teams without Allen, is interesting, I don't think it's prudent to extrapolate and suggest that they would win like that throughout the season without Allen.

Allen makes the point that he has all the credentials, former league MVP, 3 time scoring champ, n time All star, yada yada, and because of those credentials, if he can play, he should start. And that's the way it has been the past 8 years. There is precedent. Of course this isn't a court of US law where that is really binding, but it certainly is compelling...at least to me.

That's all I have for now.

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 10:24 PM
I simply cannot fathom how anyone could actually side with Iverson. It's absolutely mind boggling to see someone defend that thing.

And another thing, Iverson doesn't represent hard work. Someone that refuses to show up to work does NOT represent a hard working individual.

Jeremiah
03-15-2004, 10:26 PM
You're a smart fellow, just think about it. If after a few days you still can't understand how, I'll try again.

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 10:30 PM
I cannot see Iverson being a part of a team that wins a championship. He's too much of a cancer.

Can you make a legitimate statement that in any way excuses Iverson for his actions?
It would not be acceptable from ANY Mavs player. And guess what, there's a player or two on the Mavs squad that are flat out better players than Iverson.

So tell me again, why is it acceptable for Iverson to pull the B.S. that he just pulled a couple of days ago?

Jeremiah
03-15-2004, 10:39 PM
Which actions? Refusing to come off the bench? If that's what you're referring to, then yes.

The coach benched him because he thought he was hurt. Allen said he was well enough to play. He has set a precedent of playing hurt, playing injured, and starting while doing so. He certainly has that on his side. I think he ought to have started. The excuse not to start Allen was lame, if we are to believe that Allen did in fact notify the coach that he could in fact play. Given that, I see what Allen did as returning the insult.

mary
03-15-2004, 10:44 PM
He seems to know that he plays a game, and doesn't work in an office or on the highway, or in a coal mine all day. The only other guy that exudes that I know of is Kevin Garnett. Mike Finley, or Peja Stojakovich might have that same perspective, I just don't know that because they don't make that sense public. That's just an aside.


I don't really understand this statement at all. I guess when Dirk is drifting in and out of games, he's trying to remember if he put a cover sheet on his TPS report.

This is not just about AI disrespecting his coach. What does it say about how he feels about his teammates? How do they feel about this? How would you feel if someone wasn't willing to stoop so low as to come off the bench, even if it meant it would give the team a much better chance of winning the game? Why would ANYONE want to play with this guy?

As far as the "white" marketing issue goes - I understand the argument being made, and I mostly agree with it. But some of the underlying assumptions make me a little uneasy to the say the least.

To say the NBA doesn't market its product well because of the thuggery, showmanship and trashtalking - I can get on board with that. I just don't know if you can draw a line in the sand and say those qualities are what alienate "white" audiences from enjoying the sport. I have a bit of an issue with making that distinction.

Murphy3
03-15-2004, 10:54 PM
The reason why I mentioned 'white' males is mostly because of the monetary aspect. I'm sure that the white male still has a pretty decent stranglehold on the percentage of people that make over 75k per year. Sure, 75k is an arbitrary number that I'm throwing out there, but it sure seems like a hell of alot of money to me.

However, I'm sure you could probably throw in adults in general that make over a certain set income. However, white males probably make up the largest percentage of that group.

ddh33
03-15-2004, 11:09 PM
Be careful about what you say about Iverson. He seems like the exact kind of move that Mark might like to make...

mary
03-15-2004, 11:09 PM
Ok Murph, I understand where you're coming from.

Or at least I think I do. Are you saying the NBA is alienating the mid to upper-middle class , which are mostly made up of white individuals - and that in general, the mid to upper middle class frowns upon such values as selfishness, thuggery and showmanship?

I'm not trying to be dense - just seeking some clarification.

dirno2000
03-16-2004, 12:28 AM
NBA television viewership is at an all-time low. It consistently gets beat by such "second-tier" sports as NASCAR, golf and college basketball. The league is in for a financial reckoning quite soon, and it won't be pretty. Just look at hockey's impending (as in 2004 - 5) doom: their problem is not game attendance, it's lack of TV viewership.

I know that TV. is the big revenue driver, but don't discount the effect of having at or near a full house when AI comes to town. Especially in cities that don't sell out regularly. I would also assert that there's a strong correlation between how a team draws on the road and what kind of ratings they draw. For instance, the Lakers draw well on the road and they're also a ratings booster. Everybody can't fit in the arena.

Are ratings at an all time low share wise or total ratings wise? I don't doubt that its share is down since that's pretty much the case across the boards. The NFL, king of all American sports leagues, has been trying to curb the downward spiral of MNF viewership for about the past decade; and MNF is an institution. Simply put, there's more competition today than ever. There's also more market saturation in every sport. The cable viewer willing to spend a couple of extra bucks can see any game he wants so of course the networks are going to suffer.

As far as the NBA loosing viewers to NASCAR and Golf, are we comparing apples to apples? I hope you're not comparing the Masters or Daytona to a regular season NBA game. Not saying you are, it's just that you were kind of vague.

When is this day of reckoning coming? Didn't the NBA just sing a new television deal about a year ago? Looks like those revenues will be stable for the foreseeable future. Stern and Hunter are already laying the groundwork for a new labor deal to avoid another stoppage of play. Not to mention the fact that due to the influx of foreign players, the NBA is probably expanding it's market faster than any other professional sport.

I donít doubt that AI turns a few viewers off. I just doubt that itís enough to make a serious ratings dent.


Me-first, show-boating, grand-standing, whiny, trash-talking mememe players like Iverson will never drive broader-audience TV viewership. And you're crazy if you don't think Stern doesn't know that: it's been entertaining, at the very least, to watch him try to walk that marketing tightrope the past few years.

I'll ask the question again: If Iverson doesn't drive ratings then why does Philly get so many national TV games, or any for that matter? There's nobody else on that team worth watching.

dirno2000
03-16-2004, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
The reason why I mentioned 'white' males is mostly because of the monetary aspect. I'm sure that the white male still has a pretty decent stranglehold on the percentage of people that make over 75k per year. Sure, 75k is an arbitrary number that I'm throwing out there, but it sure seems like a hell of alot of money to me.

However, I'm sure you could probably throw in adults in general that make over a certain set income. However, white males probably make up the largest percentage of that group.

I would be willing to bet that while there is a socioeconomic divide, the more clear cut divide is generational.

bernardos70
03-16-2004, 12:35 AM
http://s87366392.onlinehome.us/pictures/iverson.jpg

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by: mary
Ok Murph, I understand where you're coming from.

Or at least I think I do. Are you saying the NBA is alienating the mid to upper-middle class , which are mostly made up of white individuals - and that in general, the mid to upper middle class frowns upon such values as selfishness, thuggery and showmanship?

I'm not trying to be dense - just seeking some clarification.

Mary, you did a much better job of saying what I was attempting to say.

sturm und drang
03-16-2004, 08:07 AM
I just feel the need to jump in the fray again to clarify some points. I work in advertising, so bear me out!

Dirno, NBA is down in both net homes and market share. Net TV viewership is down across the board, as we all know, losing valuable ground to cable and the Internet. Relatively, though, the NBA is getting its ass kicked. Remember that last year's Finals were the lowest-rated in something like 15 years? The market share numbers were absolutely laughable-- I recall them being around 2.3. Mind-numbingly bad.

Mark my words: there will be a day of financial reckoning for the NBA if it cannot drastically improve its television ratings. There's a lag, to be sure: just look at baseball, which is still somewhat fiscally healthy. But as networks determine that the slide in viewership is a trend, not an aberration... just watch what happens to hockey this next year, and then apply the same metric to the NBA a few years from now.

And as distasteful as it is to many of us-- and, um, I think we all know my political views and tendencies towards raging Democratic political correctness -- advertising is NOTHING BUT stereotyping. Trust me, there are a bunch of advertising people like myself running around with occasional guilt for it. All advertising and marketing is aimed at attracting a certain type of customer. You can always tell a guy-aimed ad from a girl-aimed ad, can't you? Or a brand or campaign that is attempting to lure ethnic customers? Or one that is intended to draw older/younger/gay/urban/rural consumers?

What I'm trying to say is that I can guarantee you the NBA talks specifically in their wood-paneled boardrooms about aggressively courting white males. I guarantee you that conversation occurs on a daily basis. For better or for worse, young white males aged 22-35 are the absolute marketing sweetspot, the demographic every advertiser is willing to pay a premium to connect with. And without that audience, you're doomed to failure. African-Americans do not represent a large enough audience -- number- or spending power-wise -- that most big advertisers (P&G, Coke, Budweiser, Ford, etc.) will want to lure. We can dance around the black/white marketing issue and pretend it doesn't exist, but it does. And I promise you it is at the absolute forefront of the NBA's marketing initiatives right now. If they don't start to attract more of those viewers, no network will want their programming. And the only way to get those viewers is to adopt a more NFL-esque approach, as Murph alluded to. Sell the team, sell the Underdog, sell the scrappy, hard-working, against-all-odds player. The New England Patriots are, quite frankly, the way a team -- and league -- should be marketed to attract a broader audience.

Back to the point. Allen Iverson is bad for the game. He may have talent, but his volume-shooting, me-first, whiny, I'm-entitled-to-special-treatment attitude is repugnant to most Americans -- and it would be if he were white, if he were a she, if he'd gone to Stanford, if he were playing football or baseball or any other sport. And the particular danger with his behaviour vis-a-vis the NBA is that it simply corroborates the perception most people already have of the league...

dirno2000
03-16-2004, 08:47 AM
The NBA is not the NFL where you have 22 starters plus specialists. As many have alluded to in basketball discussions here, the NBA is a game dominated by stars. That's a fact thatís been established on the court before it was established in marketing boardrooms. Youíll never see an NBA team win the title doing what the Pats did; picking up marginal free agents cheap and putting them in a system that allows them to win. It won't happen, different game. The Spurs would probably be the closest thing in the NBA to the Patriots and youíre right, they brought in the lowest rating since 1981.

Now, when were league ratings not a concern? The Michael Jordan Era. They did pretty well in the Larry Bird and Magic Johnson era also. You can sell stars in the NBA, you just need the right stars to sell.

Does Iverson turn some white Americans off? Without a doubt. Does he turn them off to the point that they won't watch NBA games solely because of him and say Rasheed? This is where we disagree. Most posters on this board (I would imagine the demographic is dominated by white males) don't like Iverson, but they still watch NBA basketball. Probably even watch Philly if it's the only game on.

One last point

NEW YORK (AP) -- The Los Angeles Lakers' NBA title repeat gave NBC its highest overnight ratings for the Finals since Michael Jordan's last season.

Friday night's Game 5 between the Los Angeles Lakers and Philadelphia 76ers had an overnight rating of 13.5 with a 24 share.

That gave NBC a five-game overnight average of 14.8/25, 7 percent higher than the Lakers' championship last year against Indiana (13.8/24), and 26 percent higher than the 11.7/21 for the five-game series between New York and San Antonio in 1999.

The first five games of the 2000 Finals averaged 13.1/23 on the overnights.

Overnight ratings measure the biggest U.S. TV markets, covering about 63 percent of the country.

It was also the best Game 5 since Jordan's 1998 championship run with the Chicago Bulls, when NBC got a 20.7 rating and 36 share. NBC got a 12.1/22 last season.

Los Angeles posted the highest numbers with a 35.7 rating and 58 share. Philadelphia was second at 33.5/54. It was the first time in the series that Los Angeles had better ratings than Philadelphia.

So the Iverson series was the highest rated since Jordan and ratings have slipped the past two years. I guess you would argue that the drop is because of players like Iverson, and while that's possible, it ignores the fact that professional team sports ratings are dropping across the board. Even in the NFL.

sturm und drang
03-16-2004, 09:02 AM
Dirno: I'm not trying to be contrarian, but your assertion that the NFL is performing poorly just isn't true. And I do agree that there's a crucial role to be played by superstars in any sport, but I think the NBA and its networks should do a much better job of determining which stars to throw their collective marketing weight behind. Talent alone does not a star make, and the NBA has done a poor job of identifying and marketing stars to whom the broader public can relate-- and support.

NFL television ratings tops in all U.S. markets for first time in history

December 30, 2003

NEW YORK (AP) - NFL games last week were the top-rated shows in all 30 of the league's markets for the first time ever.

Starting with Monday night, Dec. 22, when Green Bay beat Oakland, and continuing through last Saturday and Sunday, the games topped all other ratings. For the season, NFL games were the top-rated shows in the U.S. 73 per cent of the time, up from 69 per cent last year and 55 per cent in 2001.

According to the NFL, the previous high was on opening weekend this season, when the games were the top-rated show in 28 markets.

There are 32 NFL teams, but 30 markets - New York has two teams and San Francisco/Oakland is one television market.

dirno2000
03-16-2004, 09:18 AM
I didn't mean to imply that the NFL is doing poorly in local markets. Actually, they're not doing poorly anywhere. My point is that MNF, the NFLís flagship primetime event (Super Bowl excluded) has been in a ratings tailspin the past few years and IMO it's because viewers have more options.

grbh
03-16-2004, 10:09 AM
The NBA's difficulty with marketing a team is because it is a star driven league, unlike the NFL. I suppose there is the exception with all the glamour and success the Laker franchise has had, but by and large I think they are the only exception to the rule. The NFL has no choice but to market the teams for several reasons

1. Players hiding behind helmets
2. Shoter playing career
3. A lot more players

The parity in the NFL helps too. Every year when game one roles around your team has hope. After all the Panthers were 1-15 a couple years ago, and went to a Super Bowl last year. That doesn't happen in the NBA. I don't think anyone would argue that the Phoenix Suns are a couple years away from the finals.

I think the biggest problem for the NBA is they don't have many marketable stars. Let's look at some of the top stars in the league, and I think you will see most are not terribly appealing to the 22-48 upper middle class demographic.

Shaq: Maybe marginally
Kobe: He was before he had to undergo a rape trial
Iverson: No
Duncan: Great player, but boring to the masses
KG: Marginally, but he plays in Minny
Yao: Marginally, but limited English is an issue
Dirk: I don't see the American public latching on to a Euro
Peja: See above
Webber: No
Kidd: Marginally, but he beat his wife
Marbury: No

Do any of those players have what it takes to be the face of the league like a Jordan, Magic, or to a lesser degree Bird. I don't think so.

IMO opinion the NBA is preparing, for better or for worse, to have Lebron take that role.

It is a lot to shoulder for a 19 year old kid, but if you look at his game and the intangibles he is the best option.

What the NBA wants to market is a winner with a big smile, who says and does alll the right things on and off the court. To this point James' has done a good job of fitting that role. Will he continue to grow into it, who knows.

Chiwas
03-16-2004, 10:25 AM
Although I agree that the NBA is wanting and trying to make Lebron the figure lost with Jordan's retirement and the problems of Kobe, I don't think Lebron has the charisma enough to be that idol. What is more, I see Lebron having more personal problems in the future than Kobe or Webber; it's a premonition.

I think Carmelo has more charisma, although is not as good player as James. But who knows? Jordan wasn't very good at the beginning.

grbh
03-16-2004, 10:31 AM
Chiwas, I'm assuming you mean Jordan didn't have that charisma at the beginning not stats. He put up a monster rookie year.

28.2 Points
6.5 Rebounds
6 Assists
2.5 Steals
and shot over 50% from the field

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 11:06 AM
GRBH, you hit on a thing or two that I briefly touched on. It is a huge issue to the NBA that they market the players instead of the teams. What happens when the players that they market go through issues such as Kobe and Iverson? Obviously, it has a much bigger impact than it would if something similar happened to player in the NFL because the NFL markets the team.

I also asked whether or not it's possible to actually market the team instead of the player in the NBA. I don't know the answer. However, I do know that marketing the player as much as the NBA does has too big of a risk-reward factor. The risk can be far too high. So sure, the NBA has to market the players more than the NFL, but couldn't they find more of a 'happy median' between marketing the players and the teams?

grbh
03-16-2004, 09:02 PM
Ii agree to a point M<urrrphy, but whi will you market:;;

Dallas: No
Kings: No
Lakerss:;; To some degree
Spurs: No
Minny: No, at lezst till kg wins

Jeremiah
03-16-2004, 09:23 PM
I don't really understand this statement at all. I guess when Dirk is drifting in and out of games, he's trying to remember if he put a cover sheet on his TPS report.



Quote




He seems to know that he plays a game, and doesn't work in an office or on the highway, or in a coal mine all day. The only other guy that exudes that I know of is Kevin Garnett. Mike Finley, or Peja Stojakovich might have that same perspective, I just don't know that because they don't make that sense public. That's just an aside.









I don't really understand this statement at all. I guess when Dirk is drifting in and out of games, he's trying to remember if he put a cover sheet on his TPS report.

That fact is painfully obvious. To clarify: my opinion of many NBA players, and professional athletes as well, is that they think they project the opinion that they are doing something that they are not. They seem to enjoy equating their job with that of a soldier in war, or like to tell the public how difficult it is to do what they do, athletic ability and skillset aside, or they seem to take their job a bit too seriously. The sideline reporters play to this as well when they ask them how hard it is to have been bounced from the first round 7 straight times, or how bad it must feel to be booed, or how hard it is to stop someone from scoring, that someone who just happened to not have been guarded at all. Allen and Kevin seem to answer such questions with the perspective that they are playing a game, and nothing more. For example, I remember Kevin being asked about a losing streak or being bounced from the first round 4 times straight and how difficult that must be on him, how does he fight through the struggle not to lose, or something along those lines. He answered that struggling was having 6 kids, leaks in the roof, holes in the clothes, some beans on the table, and two weeks before the next paycheck comes. It was a bit melodramatic, and he sidestepped the direct question, but it was refreshing to hear that not every player had a completely warped perspective courtesy of an insular life. With Allen, I canít seem to think of a specific example of this right now. However, I do like the perspective that he projects as far as the team vs me debate. He is nearly always putting his team to the front when he is being interviewed. Heís always giving credit to them. Not that heís taking credit away from himself, but he certainly is telling the interviewers that itís not just because of him that they win or lose, itís because of his team. That perspective is something that I think is good for the league. It is directly opposite of how Tracy McGrady talks about his team.




This is not just about AI disrespecting his coach. What does it say about how he feels about his teammates? How do they feel about this? How would you feel if someone wasn't willing to stoop so low as to come off the bench, even if it meant it would give the team a much better chance of winning the game? Why would ANYONE want to play with this guy?

I think his teammates enjoy Allen. They certainly are not so naïve to think that they can win as much without Allen as they can with him. I think it says that he knows he is the leader of the team, and as such, along with his other credentials, and history, should start. I suppose that I donít think his team has a better chance of winning any random game without him than with him. Sure, they will win games without him, but I donít think the odds are in their favor when picking a random game.



Iíll tell you why anyone would want to play with this guy. He commands respect because of his talent, and how he wants to improve, and how he plays. I donít know really know what he does when heís not playing, I donít really know if heís doing his best while in games, I just know that that is what the talking heads, his teammates, and he tells me. And I believe them. He doesnít say his teammates are crap like a certain Jason Williams, Michael Jordan or Tracy McGrady have. He appears to care about winning and playing well. I remember one of the very first articles I read about Allen was during his first or second year in the league. He said something about heís not that great at doing this or doing that, but not to worry, heís working on it, and in a few months, when these reporters decide to come back, theyíll see that he has gotten better. I identify with that.

Lastly, Iíd like to address the whole bit about Allen disrespecting his coach. I concede that he did so. The problem with the argument though is that it is used without acknowledging the possibility that his coach disrespected Allen. Some will argue that that point is irrelevant as the coach is the authority, and the athlete ought to obey the coach. Iíll say that there are times when insubordination is the appropriate response. Just because some authority gives an order does not mean it is the right order. I was watching Sportscenter last night, and David Aldridge said that the coach will probably not be there next year, and Allen might not either. As such, the coachís perspective is to do what he thinks is the right thing to do. I can agree with that. I also respect that, as many men will bow to the pressure of others and not do what they feel is the right thing. However, I also believe that Allen did what he thought was the right thing given the circumstances.

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 10:07 PM
Maybe he should have came off of the bench tonight. He had 10 points on 4-15 shooting with 5 turnovers.

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 10:09 PM
Or perhaps he should practice.

mary
03-16-2004, 10:28 PM
That fact is painfully obvious. To clarify: my opinion of many NBA players, and professional athletes as well, is that they think they project the opinion that they are doing something that they are not. They seem to enjoy equating their job with that of a soldier in war, or like to tell the public how difficult it is to do what they do, athletic ability and skillset aside, or they seem to take their job a bit too seriously.

So far you've claimed some players act like they work in an office, a coal mine, or that they think they are soldiers at war. Talk about an analogy that is all over the place. But back to the point you were trying to make, I don't think anyone would ever accuse AI of taking his job too seriously. At times he doesn't seem to take it very serious at all. He is notorious for missing practices throughout his career. If lacking work ethic is something you find admirable, then I guess A.I. is your man.


They certainly are not so naïve to think that they can win as much without Allen as they can with him. I think it says that he knows he is the leader of the team, and as such, along with his other credentials, and history, should start. I suppose that I donít think his team has a better chance of winning any random game without him than with him. Sure, they will win games without him, but I donít think the odds are in their favor when picking a random game.

We really have no idea if A.I.'s teammates enjoy playing with him.


He appears to care about winning and playing well.

Well apparently the other night he cared more about the power struggle with his coach then he did about giving his team the best chance to win. It "appeared" as if he was worried more about being "dissed" than he was about the fact that his team needed him to play to be competitive - regardless of whether or not he was coming off the bench.



I think it says that he knows he is the leader of the team, and as such, along with his other credentials, and history, should start

A.I.'s leadership qualities are laughable at best. Isn't this the same guy that called his team out in the media for not playing with any effort and then missed practice the same week?

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 10:32 PM
They certainly are not so naïve to think that they can win as much without Allen as they can with him. I think it says that he knows he is the leader of the team, and as such, along with his other credentials, and history, should start. I suppose that I donít think his team has a better chance of winning any random game without him than with him. Sure, they will win games without him, but I donít think the odds are in their favor when picking a random game.

Personally, I don't think they can win with or without Iverson. I don't believe that Iverson will ever be a part of championship team. He is too self absorbed to actually do what's best for the team on a nightly basis.

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 10:32 PM
double post

Iverson's a baby.

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 10:32 PM
Triple post.

Iverson's a baby.

mary
03-16-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by: Murphy3
Or perhaps he should practice.


Murph, A.I. doesn't need to practice - he's a L - E - A - D - E -R


i/expressions/moon.gif

Murphy3
03-16-2004, 10:37 PM
Oh, I forgot. Leader's don't need to practice.
Apparently leaders don't need to shoot 40% from the field or 30% from behind the arc either. Hell, I guess Antoine Walker could be the Mavs leader.

OutletPass
03-17-2004, 01:08 AM
Circle the Wagons, folks...Marc Stein's latest ESPN Insider column discusses AI leaving Philly and lists the Mavs as one of the 5 most likely detinations for him...imagine trading the volume shooter at PF only to find that we have a bigger volume shooter in AI.

What a nightmare of a thought that is.

What's next ? Jamison for Paul Pierce so that we can corner the market on volume shooters.

Murphy3
03-17-2004, 02:14 AM
Kidd for Nash
Keep Walker
Bring in Iverson for Finley
Pierce for Dirk
and throw in Clifford Robinson at center

dirno2000
03-17-2004, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by: OutletPass
Circle the Wagons, folks...Marc Stein's latest ESPN Insider column discusses AI leaving Philly and lists the Mavs as one of the 5 most likely detinations for him...imagine trading the volume shooter at PF only to find that we have a bigger volume shooter in AI.

What a nightmare of a thought that is.

What's next ? Jamison for Paul Pierce so that we can corner the market on volume shooters.

Did he mention the Spurs, there's been some discussion about that on the Spurs board and they would seem to be a more likely destination. I really think that Cuban has learned his lesson with the Walker experiment. The Spurs on the other hand have the cap room to comfortably absorb Iverson's salary without going deep into luxury tax territory. I can't see Iverson as a Spur, but a short playoff run with a healthy Tim Duncan may convince them that they need another scorer to go with Tim. AI would be a better fit in S.A. than he would here. Because we are such a poor defensive team, we can't really afford to carry low percentage shooters.

OutletPass
03-17-2004, 05:38 PM
Dirno, it was Memphis, Detroit, Denver, and Dallas in that order...then a group of "blow up" teams like GS, Clips, and Magic just as "who will have cap room" possibilities...No mention at all of the Spurs.

Murphy3
03-18-2004, 10:51 AM
8-23

ddh33
03-18-2004, 11:46 AM
I may be cursed for saying this, but I would condone bringing in Iverson. I know he has a ton of baggage and many issues. But he's also a fiery competitor. He brings it every night (until recently) and gives his all. I know he doesn't like to practice and he shoots too much. So would anyone else on that Philly team.

Put Iverson in Dallas with this support group and he would flourish. I think his intensity might even rub off on his teammates.

I know I would welcome another competitor...

Murphy3
03-18-2004, 12:42 PM
Iverson would drag down this franchise to a new low. I can just imagine it now..Iverson averaging 22 shots a game while Dirk struggles to get 12 shots..fin struggles to get into double figures...nash just retires..

kg_veteran
03-18-2004, 12:50 PM
That would damn near suck my love of the Mavs out of me.

dirno2000
03-18-2004, 01:23 PM
Forget the chemistry effects, I wouldn't trade for AI because I think his body is going to break down the next couple of years and for some reason the Sixers just extended him.

I do wish that I could instill AI's competitive fire in this team. I'm tired of hearing sullen Dirk in the post game media session talking about how they didn't bring it...dammitt your the best player on this team...you need to bring it every night and if someone doesn't then you need to get in their asses. If he could embarass the team into playing defense, I'd deal with his 22 shots a night.

Murphy3
03-18-2004, 02:09 PM
Iverson would get on someone's ass and then not show up the practice the next day.
That's exactly what the Mavs need.

dirno2000
03-18-2004, 02:21 PM
He'd show up...he's just be a few minutes latei/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif. I don't condone that, but it's never had an adverse on the way he or the team performs on the court. At least when they had a coach.

Murphy3
03-18-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by: dirno2000
He'd show up...he's just be a few minutes latei/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif. I don't condone that, but it's never had an adverse on the way he or the team performs on the court. At least when they had a coach.

It hasn't?

dirno2000
03-18-2004, 03:14 PM
No, it hasn't. During the Larry Brown era, that team (led by Iverson) always played hard and played up to, and sometimes beyond, their limited potential. Now, should Iverson always show up to practice and be on time? Yes, he should, but after a while the team just adjusts and say "that's just AI being AI".

Iím not saying I want him here, just that his practice habits are pretty low on the list of reason why I donít want him.

Murphy3
03-18-2004, 03:50 PM
Quit taking up for the idiot. The Sixers accomplished nothing with Brown as the coach. So what, they made it to the finals coming out of the Eastern Conference. Who gives a rats ass. What did that make them that year? They weren't an elite team. They weren't close to being an elite team. They survived the East. That meant absolutely nothing at the time. It meant very little last year. The top team or two in the East are just now getting to a level to where they can be considered just about on par with the elite. Perhaps Indiana is an elite team now. We'll see. But Philadelphia making it to the finals a few years back means absolutely nothing.

dirno2000
03-18-2004, 04:14 PM
We've argued this before so I doubt we're going to agree now. IMO, winning 56 games, making the NBA Finals, and winning a game in L.A., when they were at their peak, means something. It doesn't mean as much in the East as in the West, but it means something nonetheless. Especially when you consider that he was playing with Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, Raja Bell, and Deke, all marginal to bad offensive players.

...and I'm not saying that he doesn't have shortcomings. Itís just that got on your bad side a long time ago so all you see are his negatives. I'm not even trying to change you mind about him, just trying to provide another perspective. If you disagree, fine.

Murphy3
03-18-2004, 04:57 PM
Coming out of the East means very little.
Winning 56 games in the East means very little

Jeremiah
03-18-2004, 08:44 PM
Quote

That fact is painfully obvious. To clarify: my opinion of many NBA players, and professional athletes as well, is that they think they project the opinion that they are doing something that they are not. They seem to enjoy equating their job with that of a soldier in war, or like to tell the public how difficult it is to do what they do, athletic ability and skillset aside, or they seem to take their job a bit too seriously.


I do not mind being quoted, but I do mind someone taking my words and changing them without noting such. Please, if you choose to emphasize my words that previously had no emphasis, insert the words, ďemphasis added,Ē in parentheses next to these words. Itís a bit deceitful to do otherwise.



So far you've claimed some players act like they work in an office, a coal mine, or that they think they are soldiers at war. Talk about an analogy that is all over the place.
That you are not bright enough, or do not use the required amount of effort to understand my analogy is a personal problem. If you do not understand, just say so as you did before, I am happy to clarify.
I wrote that basketball is a game and as such, is not comparable as work to many 40 hour per week jobs. That is the meaning of my analogy. I used office jobs, coal mining, and soldiering as examples of work that normal people do 5 days per week as part of their routine. His, and his peers routines are vastly different, as their work is a game. I concede that some see the work that normal folks do as a game as well, but I will say that is small percentage of the population. I could have just said his work is a game, other peopleís work is work, but I thought Iíd use a few examples of what I was thinking about to illustrate my point. Does that make sense now?


But back to the point you were trying to make, I don't think anyone would ever accuse AI of taking his job too seriously. At times he doesn't seem to take it very serious at all. He is notorious for missing practices throughout his career. If lacking work ethic is something you find admirable, then I guess A.I. is your man.

Thanks, but I did make my point. You are making a habit of missing my point. There are athletes that take their job so seriously as to equate it with that of being a soldier, which is a warped sense of reality. There are a few, that through their words that I read, or hear them say, that have the perspective that what they do for a living is a game, and does carry the same responsibility and accountability as other jobs. That is the perspective that I sense from Allen. I concede that it is still warped because heís not doing work like the work that the people that pay to see him do, but it certainly is refreshing in comparison.
I agree that missing practices does not exhibit work ethic. I wrote that his image is that of a hard worker, of a courageous player. I also wrote that I donít know if he fulfills that image, but that is his image. I donít see NBA practices, I donít know what they do there, I donít know how hard they work. All I get to see are the games and the press conferences. I prefer athletes, stars or scrubs, to show up to every practice. However, I recognize that some athletes that show up 60% of the time, can work twice as hard as those that show up 100% of the time. While it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to know that some athletes skip practice, what I care about is what they do when they are there. This all came out of you twisting my words to mean what you want them to mean though.
I said I identify with someone that is willing to do what is necessary to get better. Perhaps for him that meant practicing 60% of the time. For others, that would probably mean practicing at all organized practices, and then practicing the same amount of time outside of organized practice. Darrel Armstrong is not ever going to be as good as Allen, but he has an inspiring story of hard work and perseverance. For him to make it in the NBA, he has said that he had to put in a lot of extra practice, and had to beg the Orlando coach to let him workout with the Magic. Thatís great, and that exhibits a desire to do what is necessary to succeed. Some have to work harder than others to reach their goals.


Quote

They certainly are not so naïve to think that they can win as much without Allen as they can with him. I think it says that he knows he is the leader of the team, and as such, along with his other credentials, and history, should start. I suppose that I donít think his team has a better chance of winning any random game without him than with him. Sure, they will win games without him, but I donít think the odds are in their favor when picking a random game.



We really have no idea if A.I.'s teammates enjoy playing with him.
Except that they have said as much. You might have no idea, but I do.


Quote

He appears to care about winning and playing well.


Well apparently the other night he cared more about the power struggle with his coach then he did about giving his team the best chance to win. It "appeared" as if he was worried more about being "dissed" than he was about the fact that his team needed him to play to be competitive - regardless of whether or not he was coming off the bench.

I never said that he didnít care about being respected. Most athletes, most black males, and most people do care about being respected. Iím sure the teamís best chance to win involved Allen starting the game. Ford either thought otherwise, or thought the same, but didnít want to start Allen because of some other reason. I know that you think the teamís best chance of winning that game involved Allen not starting, or involved Allen doing exactly what Ford told him to do, I donít.


Quote

I think it says that he knows he is the leader of the team, and as such, along with his other credentials, and history, should start



A.I.'s leadership qualities are laughable at best. Isn't this the same guy that called his team out in the media for not playing with any effort and then missed practice the same week?
This is the same guy that said he wouldnít name anyone because he would not want to be called out individually himself. Then he said as a team, of which he is a member, the effort was not there. Being the best player on a team is not always the sign of a good leader, as evidenced by Tracy McGrady, but Allen exhibits the desire to take the responsibility of his team playing well.

mary
03-18-2004, 08:59 PM
That you are not bright enough, or do not use the required amount of effort to understand my analogy is a personal problem.

If you want to debate the merits of Allen Iverson, I'd be more than happy to go back and forth with you.

But if you're just going to turn it into a personal attack, its really not worth my time.

I'll leave you to your Allen Iverson underoos.

And as far as what gives the team the best chance to win - you are the one missing MY point.

Here it is laid out.

Philidelphia needed A.I. to be competitive.

A.I. could have played.

He chose not to because the coach hurt his feelings.

Philidelphia was less competitive that night because of the choice A.I. made to not play.

Conclusion: A.I.'s actions were self-serving and detrimental to his team's chances of winning the game.

That's as simple as I can possibly put it.

Edited to add a side note: Tonight Greg Popovich asked the LEAGUE'S REIGNING MVP to come off the bench after returning from injury. Guess what? Tim Duncan came off the bench. And that is why Tim Duncan has led his team to 2 championship rings folks. Say what you will about the Spurs, Duncan is a classy guy all around.

mary
03-18-2004, 09:27 PM
Eskin's Take: Is Iverson A Cancer On Team?

On Sports Final, NBC 10's Howard Eskin talked with NBC 10 sports anchor John Clark about his questioning of Chris Ford. Eskin also had his take on the Sixers' future with Iverson

Eskin: Well, there were further questions, but we were not going to get anywhere. He obviously didn't say too much.

What happened? Allen called -- excuse me. Somebody called and from what I understand, it was not Allen. And after that conversation, and it wasn't Allen, the Sixers determined that Allen had -- get this now -- Gastroenteritis. For those people that are not medically brilliant, like me, it's the irritation and inflammation of the digestive tract. Do you know what's weird about this whole thing? They diagnosed this and he wasn't even . . .

Clark: Maybe A.I.'s doctor diagnosed.

Eskin: Wait a minute. The Sixers have a doctor. It's obvious this guy violated the rule and decided he didn't want to play. He decided he didn't want to come tonight and we'll deal with more on that later.

Clark: I think the interesting thing, Chris said it earlier, they are 3-1 without Iverson and Robinson in the line-up.

Eskin: He said something interesting. These players have executed. He didn't say because they were not there, but it's obvious, they execute better.

Clark: They played very good defense tonight and last night.

Eskin: They play harder because they know they were be involved without somebody else dominating.

Clark: A lot of teams do play harder when they're missing players. The bottom line, are they better and worse? You're saying they're better without Iverson?

Eskin: I think the team as a whole without the cancer going on in the locker room.

Clark: Cancer?

Eskin: I say cancer. The coaches and players, though the players won't say it, don't like the uncertainty all the time. It's obvious many problems exist here. They just play better as a basketball team. Are they more talented? No. But they play better.
Copyright 2004 by NBC10.com. All right

mary
03-18-2004, 09:37 PM
3/1/04 Philadelphia fined Allen Iverson for not attending Sunday's game. Iverson has not been playing due to an injured shoulder.

11/29/03 The NBA fined Allen Iverson (Phi) $10,000 for flipping off the crowd during Tuesday's Mil-Phi game.

3/11/03 The NBA fined Larry Brown (Phi) $7,500 and fined Allen Iverson (Phi) $7,500 for criticizing a ref following Sunday's Phi-LAL game.

2/9/02 The NBA fined Allen Iverson (Phi) $10,000 for skipping Friday's media session.

2/2/01 The NBA fined Allen Iverson (Phi) $5,000 for making a derogatory remark towards abusive fans during Saturday's Phi-Ind game.

3/16/00 Philadelphia suspended Allen Iverson for 1 game for missing the team's shootaround Thursday morning.

3/27/98 The NBA fined Larry Brown (Phi) $6,000, fined Derrick Coleman $6,000, and fined Allen Iverson (Phi) $3,000 for publically criticizing the refs after Wednesday's Phi-NJ game.

12/15/97 Philadelphia suspended Allen Iverson for one game for missing practice on Sunday.

10/3/97 The NBA has suspended Allen Iverson (Phi) for the first game of the regular season for pleading no contest to carrying a concealed weapon this summer.

Big Boy Laroux
03-19-2004, 07:53 AM
Edited to add a side note: Tonight Greg Popovich asked the LEAGUE'S REIGNING MVP to come off the bench after returning from injury. Guess what? Tim Duncan came off the bench. And that is why Tim Duncan has led his team to 2 championship rings folks. Say what you will about the Spurs, Duncan is a classy guy all around.

i was going to post this same thing... this really makes Iverson look like a baby. all those things iverson said to reporters "how many all-stars come off the bench? how many former mvps come off the bench?" etc. just look like a bunch of hooey.

Murphy3
03-19-2004, 08:45 AM
It's a shame that Iverson won an MVP. Lord knows that he wasn't deserving.

mavsman55
03-20-2004, 04:08 PM
(quote courtesy of NBA.com)

"Just three days after All-Star guard Allen Iverson refused to come off the bench for the Philadelphia 76ers, Duncan made his return to the Spurs as a reserve. He missed the previous two games and nine of the last 10 due to left knee problems."

Iverson said he didn't know of any All-Star and Olympian that would come off the bench, but Duncan - a perennial All-Star and two-time MVP - did not have a problem with the idea."

The idea is simple: Duncan has class, is respectful, and cares more about his team than himself. Iverson is a little baby who refuses to not be the center of attention. I hope he's embarrassed by the fact that Duncan had no problem doing what he refused to.