PDA

View Full Version : What is the problem with headbands?


Big Shot Rob
11-30-2006, 08:42 AM
I read that Sloan also forbids headbands in Utah.

I never knew this was a controversey until the issue was raised with Ben Wallace and Skiles in Chicago.

What is the deal? Why the controvsery?

Windmill360
11-30-2006, 11:15 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/grindylow713/Gangster.gif

Drbio
11-30-2006, 11:30 AM
Apparently headbands can make you gay. Just ask Mr. Sulu.

http://mud.mm-a2.yimg.com/image/570274889

Murphy3
11-30-2006, 11:39 AM
I'm sure the team just wants a certain level of uniformity.

And headbands are gay.

mary
11-30-2006, 11:56 AM
Didn't Rambo wear a headband?

MavsX
11-30-2006, 01:35 PM
rambo! haha,

Dirkadirkastan
11-30-2006, 04:37 PM
Don't the Yankees have some "no facial hair" rule or something?

snoop
11-30-2006, 05:21 PM
Don't the Yankees have some "no facial hair" rule or something?
yeah they do. the only reason this has been blown out of proportion is Big Ben is making a issue of it. Teams have codes of conduct that players must follow. If Ben was this attached to his headband the Mavs had the full MLE they would have given him to play here and wear a headband.

Canadian_Mavs_Fan_1
11-30-2006, 05:27 PM
I think it shouldn't matter what the player wears, as long as it doesn't interfere with their performance in the game. These "no this and no that" rules are a huge pile of crap.

Go Mavs Go!

Canadian_Mavs_Fan_1

Murphy3
11-30-2006, 08:54 PM
I think it shouldn't matter what the player wears,
No one asked you.

Drbio
11-30-2006, 09:01 PM
Technically murph is right here.

mqywaaah
12-01-2006, 02:55 AM
Yeah headbands are gay. Heck, lets ban any gear that a player can possibly wear in a game. Lets bring it back to the far past... Tribal style! :D








Edit

Thespiralgoeson
12-01-2006, 06:51 AM
Not allowing headbands is just stupid. The fact of the matter is, some players just look weird without them, and should ALWAYS wear a headband on court. Erick Dampier and Jason Terry definitely fall into this category. Any time I saw Nick Van Exel on court without a headband, he just didn't look right. It's a distraction. Truthfully, some players should be required to wear headbands at all times.

Dalhoop
12-03-2006, 01:56 PM
The head band rule is all about uniformity and building a team mentality. Just like the "pre game" meal, staying in the same hotel on the road and flying the same plane on road trips and riding the bus as a team to the arenas.

These player make enough money to travel how they want, but they are not allowed to. Coaches want their players to develop a sense of comradery that can't be don't if they are not placed in the same situation.

In the military everyone is expected to have their hair cut and maintained in a short style, there are no exceptions, everyone is in the same boat. Everyone wears the same uniform, you don't get to wear what you want. If a hat is required, everyone wears one ... No exceptions.

The thing with the Wallace and the headband is not about the headband at all, just not wanting your hair cut in the military, its not about the hair, its about not wanting to conform to the rules set before you. If his hair is a problem then braid it, cut it, corn roll it, rubber band it .... Whatever, but headbands are not allowed.

These players get paid alot of money to play a game that they would play for free if released from their contracts. If Ben feels strongly about his headband then allow him to void his millions of dollars in contract money and let him go to the playground and wear his headband. My guess is that he wont, and that means that if the team is expected to honor their side of the contract and pay Ben, then Ben should honor his side of the contract and follow team rules.

dude1394
12-03-2006, 02:08 PM
I understand the teams have the RIGHT to demand conformity and somethings make some sense. Especially stuff that doesn't effect your play on the court.

Let's say a guy wants to wear goggles but obviously this is not conforming, should he? I think so but if another coach thinks not don't you see that as ridiculous.

The hair and headband analogy doesn't work for me at all, it's not camraderie, none of the other players give a flip about a headband, but they might now.

Stupidity abounds in the NBA and particularly in Chicago right now.

Dalhoop
12-03-2006, 02:30 PM
Let's say a guy wants to wear goggles but obviously this is not conforming, should he? I think so but if another coach thinks not don't you see that as ridiculous.

Goggles are a health issue, to protect the eyes from stray fingers. not a coach in the league would deny that.

The hair and headband analogy doesn't work for me at all, it's not camraderie, none of the other players give a flip about a headband, but they might now.

And if you already wear your hair short, or shaved, you wouldn't give a flip about getting your hair cut, but its not about the cutting of the hair, its about conforming.

Stupidity abounds in the NBA and particularly in Chicago right now.

Stupidity does abound, but players not honoring their contract by following the rules is the least of the concerns as they will quickly learn where the paychecks come from.

dude1394
12-03-2006, 02:44 PM
I think you are mistaken about where the paychecks come from. Wallace has his, it's his no matter if he ever plays another game. He can dog it out there, claim his back hurts, whatever and there really isn't a single thing they can do.

he can flat out announce that he just doesnt' feel comfortable playing without a headband and there isnt' anything they can do about it.

Only if he refuses to play without one can they do much about it. The team really doesn't have a lot of power here and that is one of the reasons I think it's so stupid to be concerned about a headband.

Dalhoop
12-03-2006, 03:03 PM
No, I know where the money comes from. Ben can decide to side with back pain, and the team can have him looked at by their doctors.

It could become a TAW matter where the contract would be voided because Ben could to refuse to play. I don't think that it would go that far, but it could.

Again, tell me why when a player comes to the team he gets to change team rules? You seem to be making the Bulls out to be the bad guys ... When in fact the rule was never an issue until one player decides to buck the system.

One player doesn't make, or break, team policy. It is up to Ben to conform ... and he has.

dude1394
12-03-2006, 03:18 PM
Oh you misunderstand me. I'm really not on Wallace's side here in flaunting the rules, just decrying what seems like divisive stupidity to me on the part of the bulls.

I don't see that there is going to be anything positive out of this even if he had conformed completely. Not ticket fans, not team spirit, nothing.
It seems petty and stupid. Grown people don't respond well to petty and stupid.

WurzburgBorn
12-03-2006, 03:26 PM
Why in the hell would you sign a free agent to a multimillion dollar deal when your organization is unwilling to bend on its silly no headband rule and the free agent in question clearly wore headbands in many of his games throughout his career. I mean, I know there are better reasons why the Bulls should not have signed Wallace, but did nobody in the organization think about the fact that Wallace wears a headband and the Bulls don't allow this? Did they just want to instigate a conflict? The guy wore a headband in Detroit and you signed him. Now you're surprised he stilll wants to wear the headband? Bulls management is stupid, stupid, stupid.

Dalhoop
12-03-2006, 03:48 PM
Oh you misunderstand me. I'm really not on Wallace's side here in flaunting the rules, just decrying what seems like divisive stupidity to me on the part of the bulls.

Actually I think its stupid for Ben to think that America will care whether a millionaire will be allowed to wear a headband or not. We showed as a country last year that we could care less if the NBA instituted a dress code and made the players look "respectable" when not on company time.

Does Ben really think that America will care if he is denied his right to wear a headband?

I don't see that there is going to be anything positive out of this even if he had conformed completely. Not ticket fans, not team spirit, nothing.
It seems petty and stupid. Grown people don't respond well to petty and stupid.

Grown people don't pay the bill in the NBA, corporations do. People will still watch the NBA whether Ben wears a headband or not. The Ad money will still come in and the fans will still pay to sit in the seats.

Why in the hell would you sign a free agent to a multimillion dollar deal when your organization is unwilling to bend on its silly no headband rule and the free agent in question clearly wore headbands in many of his games throughout his career.

Why would Ben sign with a team that doesn't allow headbands? Good question, because maybe he thinks he is bigger then the Bull organization? Because he is too big a star to follow the rules that the other players have to? I real can't think of another reason and those to don't reflex well on him as a person.

I mean, I know there are better reasons why the Bulls should not have signed Wallace, but did nobody in the organization think about the fact that Wallace wears a headband and the Bulls don't allow this?

Why would they care, If he signs, then he agrees to not wear the headband as that is a team policy

Did they just want to instigate a conflict? The guy wore a headband in Detroit and you signed him. Now you're surprised he still wants to wear the headband? Bulls management is stupid, stupid, stupid.

He wore a Detroit uniform there too, but the Bulls do things different, including a different uniform, different color socks, and a headband rule. Should Ben be allowed to where Blue and Red just because that's what he was wearing in Detroit instead of the Red and White that it also part of the uniform policy in Chicago? Was Ben looking to instigate a conflict by signing with a team that didn't allow him to wear what he wanted?

You make this out to be a problem with the Bulls, Ben agreed to sign with the Bulls, he was not traded ... it was his choice to play under Bulls management rules.

WurzburgBorn
12-03-2006, 04:55 PM
Dallhoop, seems like you put all responsibility on Ben and none on the Bulls. I'm not trying to put it all on the Bulls.

But you would think that if the Bulls had a ban on headbands and Wallace wore them often during his career (and headbands are totally different than team colors), somebody on one side of the deal would have mentioned the teams's no headband policy during negotiations. To imply that that was all Ben's responsibility and not the Bulls' is to say that ONE individual player is to be expected to foresee all contingencies, while the entire Bulls' organization need not even bother to think about such details. That's really letting the Bulls' organization off the hook.
If you are arguing more generally that corporations, by definition, just aren't responsible the way that people can be, then sure, I could get on board with that. But it sounds like you're just saying "hey players, the businesses are making the money, so you have to accept all their rules," to which my answer, of course, would be, "Hey owners and management, you haven't made a dime that wasn't squeezed out of the players, so shouldn't they be able to wear a headband if they want?

Re: the argument that it's just a headband, get over it:
Yes, it's just a headband, Bulls. Get over it.

dude1394
12-03-2006, 04:58 PM
So Dalhoop do you think the bulls laid out the "no-headband" rule before he signed? "Now Ben, remember before you sign we have a really stupid no headband policy, it's not in your contract, but that's just the way we do it in bulls-land."

I doubt it because it's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard off.

Again I don't think Wallace should (or probably does) care if America "cares" if he wears a headband or not.

The point I'm trying to make and I'm obviously not doing a good job of it is that I think this is a stupid policy by an organization that for no good reason is alienating their latest high-dollar acquisition. The way people feel about their organizations matter and imo this is quite stupid.

They've got every right to be stupid, they are the boss, but bosses can really screw up the motivation of players.

WurzburgBorn
12-03-2006, 05:01 PM
The point I'm trying to make and I'm obviously not doing a good job of it is that I think this is a stupid policy by an organization that for no good reason is alienating their latest high-dollar acquisition. The way people feel about their organizations matter and imo this is quite stupid.

They've got every right to be stupid, they are the boss, but bosses can really screw up the motivation of players.

I think that's right on point. Of course the Bulls have the right to deny him the headband. Ball clubs have the right to make stupid moves. That doesn't mean it's good for their team.

Dalhoop
12-03-2006, 05:30 PM
So Dalhoop do you think the bulls laid out the "no-headband" rule before he signed? "Now Ben, remember before you sign we have a really stupid no headband policy, it's not in your contract, but that's just the way we do it in bulls-land."

I doubt it because it's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard off.

Well, I can assure you that the uniform policy IS in the contract. Is it the Bulls job to read it to him ... No. Ben should read the contract before he signs it.

As for other team policies, you learn them as you go. Its part of having a job. The boss doesn't spell out everything that you will have to do with your job did he? Its because it falls under the heading "Do what the boss says"

Now is the headband rule a stupid one? Yeah, so is the behavior aspects of contracts, does that mean that a player doesn't have to follow a rule that he thinks is stupid? "Traveling is a stupid rule, I don't have to follow that" .... "Red and White are stupid colors, I'm going to wear what I want on the court" .... "Dressing nice at a team function is stupid, I'll wear what I want"

You see why uniform rules and team policies have to be followed? It so that a slippery slope doesn't come into play. The Yankees don't allow facial hair, why? Public perception ... Does anyone care? Nope ... Well except for the guys signing the checks.

The Bulls don't allow headbands does anyone care? Nope, except for the guys signing the checks.

In my job I have to wear a tie, Why? A tie gets in the way of what I try to do on the job, but I wear it, because the bosses have decided that the perception of professionalism is worth the cost of me being slightly peeved by having to wear a tie

If Ben needs a headband to be motivated, he should have brought this up behind closed doors at contract time. Shoot, even a week ago if he went behind closed doors and said "Why don't you let me try it with a headband to see if my play improves" I bet that the Bulls would have thought about it. The "policy" is not a "rule" but when it goes public, the company will defend itself. This should have done behind closed doors ... period, once it got out, Ben assured himself that the policy will not change as the perception would be in the Bulls "caving" to a star player.

If he would have kept it behind closed door the policy would most likely have "vanished" in a few weeks.

Not anymore though, now it becomes a player vs the team in the court of public opinion. In that fight the team will win every time. The public simply doesn't care for a player making millions of dollars that complains about anything.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of the rule, Every player will loose every time.

MavKikiNYC
12-03-2006, 05:33 PM
I don't think this is just about headbands.

There's apparently some friction between Skiles and Wallace, and maybe some dissatsifaction/frustration on Wallace's part about how he's performing. Was it a coincidence that he'd had a run-in with Skiles about playing music loud in the lockerroom the week before?


He may or may not have been aware of the oncourt dress code before he signed his contract (he says he wasn't), but he definitely knew about it when he went out for the tip before a game. He apparently hadn't worn the headband in previous games, but decided to before the NY game, even though assistant coaches were reminding him of the team dress code.

I have a feeling that if it hadn't been over a headband, it would've been over something else--maybe refusing to go back into a game? No, wait that was with Flip Saunders.

Maybe grousing to the press about his role on the team? No, wait that was with Flip Saunders too.

Malingering through practice? I don't think I've heard of him doing that before, so he might've taken that route.

BTW, I'll concede that Skiles also comes off as a bit of a prick as a coach, but he's working with a lot of young players, trying to mold a team, trying to instill some discipline. He had the good fortune to dump an overrated, underachieving, undisiciplined loafer like Eddie Curry, so I think I could identify with what he's trying to accomplish. Plus, he had some success with what he was trying to do last year.

I've always seen B.Wallace as one of those self-made professionals who didn't necessarily have the refined skills of other NBA players, but who instead capitalized on superior athletic skills, hard work, and a willingness to not only accept the less-than-glamourous responsbilities, but to excel at them.

Disappointed to see him acting out his frustrations like this. Really diminishes him as a professional in my eyes. Wallace could've come in and been a great example of what an individual can accomplish with hard work and persistence. Would've been a great role for him with the Bulls' current group.

You hope that Skiles will find a way to get through to him, and that Wallace will find a way to work within what the people who are paying him $60MM are asking him to do.

Dalhoop
12-03-2006, 05:53 PM
Nice post MavKikiNYC, my feelings exactly. Its about Ben not wanting to follow the rules that the team set out.

You point about the coach and a young team only leads more juice to the coach in this problem. His rule has to be law for the sake of the younger players. The Bulls looked to bring in a veterain to teach the young players about hard work, on the face of it they couldn't have picked a better player (Duncan would have been better ... but come on :) )

What they got was a play that is question his coach and management in the public form ... Bad situation.

birdsanctuary
12-03-2006, 06:35 PM
I'd like to introduce a completely new concept to this thread:

Headbands on white euro tennis players = cool
http://www.vincecoombs.plus.com/Vince/images/heros/bjorn_borg.jpg


Headbands on NBA players or rappers = gay
http://www.headbandharriers.com/Images/nelly.JPG

Therefore it would follow that:
Headbands on white euro basketball players = cool
http://img.interia.pl/sport/nimg/Dirk_Nowitzki_przekroczyl_619311.jpg
if you have a better retro Dirk Headband, please post the link..


Headbands with weird ass Japanese prints on 40 year old actors playing 18 year olds = homotastic
http://theblueballer.typepad.com/the_blue_baller/images/macchio.jpg

MavKikiNYC
12-03-2006, 07:09 PM
http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/images/photos/thorns.jpg

Early Headband Prototype.

chumdawg
12-03-2006, 07:49 PM
It's stuff like this that gets coaches fired. Quickly.

Pick your battles wisely. This one was just silly.

Locked_Up_Tonight
12-03-2006, 09:45 PM
I may not be the coach for very long but I'd wouldn't play Ben Wallace a single minute until he complied with the rules. He can collect his paycheck while on the bench. In fact, I wouldn't even suit him up. But then again I'm an @ss when it comes to stuff like that.

As soon as he starts realizing that he wasting away on the bench. He'll decide to comply.

(And it's not like management would say: play him or your fired. Why? Because they already SUCK with him on the court. Can they do any worse with him not playing? I seriously doubt it.

Nemesis
12-04-2006, 11:43 AM
http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/films/images/photos/thorns.jpg

Early Headband Prototype.

After laughing my ass off at this picture, come on man.. Nevermind... lololololololol

V2M
12-04-2006, 12:28 PM
I don't see how anyone could be so insensitive to be laughing off at that pic...

sike
12-04-2006, 01:12 PM
I don't see how anyone could be so insensitive to be laughing off at that pic...
poor taste indeed.

headbands are always gay on white men...like doc, U2, murph, and sexy...

but

are always cool on black men like dude and myself....we "black" men can pull off just about anything and make it cool

MavKikiNYC
12-04-2006, 01:16 PM
poor taste indeed.

headbands are always gay on white men...
l

Romans said the same thing.

sike
12-04-2006, 01:19 PM
"And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

MavKikiNYC
12-04-2006, 01:32 PM
"And after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand; and they knelt down before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"

Same sentiment, differently worded.

A lot of people think it's insensitive to use "gay" as a pejorative adjective. What's more, a lot of people see parallels between the story of the way the Romans and Jews scapegoated Jesus, and the way certain segments of society scapegoat homosexuals in contemporary society.

So it seems appropriate that whenever anyone uses "gay" in a pejorative sense, you should think, "Yeah, gay as Jesus."

sike
12-04-2006, 01:49 PM
Same sentiment, differently worded.

A lot of people think it's insensitive to use "gay" as a pejorative adjective. What's more, a lot of people see parallels between the story of the way the Romans and Jews scapegoated Jesus, and the way certain segments of society scapegoat homosexuals in contemporary society.

So it seems appropriate that whenever anyone uses "gay" in a pejorative sense, you should think, "Yeah, gay as Jesus."
what a dodge. You compare Jesus Christ's crown of thorns with a headband...as a joke and then try to sidestep with a strawman. This is not a philosophy of language class, it is a simple act of mocking Jesus, by you, for the sake of humor. don't get preachy when your initial intent was simple mockery.

Nemesis
12-04-2006, 01:55 PM
Not that this should need an explanation (obvious to me) but the reason I was laughing is b/c this is the last thing I would put in a thread like this and I find it amazing that none of the members in this forum have not 'stoned' you yet for doing it. You are freaking crazy!

FreshJive
12-04-2006, 01:58 PM
Jesus, I just cain't quit you.

MavKikiNYC
12-04-2006, 02:03 PM
what a dodge. You compare Jesus Christ's crown of thorns with a headband...as a joke and then try to sidestep with a strawman. This is not a philosophy of language class, it is a simple act of mocking Jesus, by you, for the sake of humor. don't get preachy when your initial intent was simple mockery.

We've had this discussion before. Too many people in this forum toss the G-word like that when other members have more or less expressed how they find it offensive. But it doesn't seem to make an impression. So from now on, whenver I see people doing that, I"m just going to think, "Yeah, gay as Jesus."

Not a dodge at all.

But it damned sure SHOULD make you uncomfortable.

Nemesis
12-04-2006, 02:03 PM
The comodians are out and about today.

sike
12-04-2006, 02:13 PM
We've had this discussion before. Too many people in this forum toss the G-word like that when other members have more or less expressed how they find it offensive. But it doesn't seem to make an impression. So from now on, whenver I see people doing that, I"m just going to think, "Yeah, gay as Jesus."

Not a dodge at all.

But it damned sure SHOULD make you uncomfortable.
it IS a dodge and remains one, unless you tell me your initial intent was to make this point. I have the strong inclination that you have adjusted your original intent from “I’m going to make a Jesus joke(haha arn't I funny)” to “I’m going to make a point”. I suppose you could lie either way and I’d have no way to prove you wrong. So if you tell me or original intention, in your first post in this thread, in making the headband Jesus joke was to primarily start a conversation about how other people’s usage of the term “gay” offends you…then I guess I’ll have no choice but to believe you.

So Kiki, that is my question to you, as someone who values honesty, was your original intent to make a joke, or to make a point?

MavKikiNYC
12-04-2006, 02:23 PM
it IS a dodge and remains one, unless you tell me your initial intent was to make this point. I have the strong inclination that you have adjusted your original intent from “I’m going to make a Jesus joke(haha arn't I funny)” to “I’m going to make a point”. I suppose you could lie either way and I’d have no way to prove you wrong. So if you tell me or original intention, in your first post in this thread, in making the headband Jesus joke was to primarily start a conversation about how other people’s usage of the term “gay” offends you…then I guess I’ll have no choice but to believe you.

So Kiki, that is my question to you, as someone who values honesty, was your original intent to make a joke, or to make a point?

It absolutely was.

You know it would be impossible (and annoying) if someone complained about every negative use of that word. But the context here did seem appropriate for making the point.

And you also know that such frequent complaining would only encourage other posters to do that and worse. So 99.9% of the time, one just has to read past the offensive comment and move on.

Or as FreshJive might say, "If you cain't fix it, you just gotta stand it."

sike
12-04-2006, 02:41 PM
then I choose to believe you.

though it certainly does not hurt me, your choice in humor seems a best ill balanced and at worst blasphemous. And to be honest, a little beneath a person of high morals.

to say, "I'm going to be offensive becausee someone else has offended me" is not the way to make a point. So continue to compare people's unintentially hurtful usage of a word with openly mocking THE/my Savior if you believe it the right thing to do...but actually, I would ask you to stop.

I for one have not had this discussion with you before, and had no idea you were so highly offended by it. As a Christian I will take the issue you've raised more seriously on this forum...but not because you've decided to mock my Lord in retribution, but because I want to strive to offend no man as much as possible...as I belive Jesus would.

just so you know, you've could have just asked me.

WurzburgBorn
12-04-2006, 03:18 PM
Edit: Deleted

Nemesis
12-04-2006, 04:49 PM
Edit: Deleted

haha.. nice

EricaLubarsky
12-04-2006, 06:55 PM
The problem with headbands is similar to the trouble with tribbles