Dismal David Maims His League

In regards to the lockout, the commissioner said, “The less coverage, the better.” He said it on a nationally syndicated radio program.

The less coverage, the better. But David Stern is on my TV. And my radio. He’s talking to the house organ, to one of the Mikes–but not one of those “Mike and Mike” Mikes. Wait, never mind, he spoke to those Mikes as well. Dan Patrick gets a healthy dose of David. It was Dan, to whom David chirped “The less coverage, the better.” That ironic comment was tethered to another: “Oh, we’d be happy to not have (the lockout) covered at all.”

My head is inundated with the commissioner’s lockout lobbying. Like a horror movie protagonist who stumbles into a smoky room of funhouse mirrors, I’m surrounded by David Stern distortions. Feinting this way and that, he’s toying with me from angles oblique, smugly cackling while smudging my brain folds. Before I know it, I’m mumbling “You can’t revenue share your way to profitability,” in a lobotomized drone, to a highly-offended homeless man.

NBA PR’s approach is reflexive, dogged. React to criticism, address it with near violent vigor. Destroy the enemy. Win the narrative. Doth protest more than too much, so much that it erases all memory of whatever you’re protesting.

Stern is the ideal instrument of the PR apparatus that grew beneath his fists. Like his minions, he’s confrontational, responsive and ubiquitous. But Stern is able to do this respectably, by the grace of quick wits and self-effacing comedic touch. Stern won’t hide. The former lawyer will present his case, and those bastards will feel his wrath. This makes other commissioners seem coy by comparison. This makes David Stern seem bigger than a mere commissioner.

So, David Stern may well win the public relations fight against these players. He has the bully pulpit, and much cachet as the smartest guy in the room. It helps that casual fans are predisposed to jealously loath NBA players.

When asked “Why should the players get punished?” Stern slyly flaunts the common man’s plight:

“If that’s punishment in this environment and this economy, with mortgage failures and unemployment, and the concerns that everyone has, then, you can call it what you like.”

If you’re the casual fan, perhaps you call “that” greed. Coddling. The root of what’s wrong with this country. It smacks of Patrick Ewing, saying, “Sure, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot, too.” How terrible.

And maybe you decide that you’re just sick of pro basketball.

This is my concern. David Stern is playing to the casual fan, by making that fan dislike the NBA player. Players might be “the enemy” here, but Stern will soon be marketing that enemy. And once resentment is stoked, can Stern easily reverse the process?

Hey remember those rich whiners who carp about cash when the recession’s destroying your meager dreams? Time to feel good about em’! Here’s Dwight Howard, hugging sick children!

I’m not usually one to give PR advice, but I have an odd stake in this. I root for the NBA to conquer all. Basketball is beautiful, expressive, inspiring. And a wonderful sport is lifted for having more viewers. As in, what would the World Cup be without The World?

I don’t want the NBA to go through another 2000’s lull. After the 1999 lockout, fans were incensed, and ratings dropped for three consecutive years. We refer to this interest decline as the “the post-Jordan era,” but we could also call it the “post-lockout era.” In the 2000’s, pro basketball dipped below pre-Jordan relevance. A 1989 Pistons-Lakers Finals notched a 15.1 TV rating. In 2004, the same series garnered an 11.5 number. Basketball waned, eventually bottoming out at a 6.2-rated NBA Finals in 2007. I’m not sure how much of that free fall can be attributable to MJ’s absence, awesome as he was. Labor stoppages tend to kill fan interest.

I don’t blame David Stern for the lockout. In these matters, a commissioner is little more than a glorified waiter, serving the owners with whatever deal they request. But Stern deserves copious blame for fanning the flames of anti-NBA sentiment. In his (probable) CBA swan song, he’s a walking, whining anti-NBA Cares ad.

The players are being greedy, intransigent, stupid, insensitive. Buy (future) tickets!

The CBA isn’t American Idol, nobody is voting on the outcome. The commissioner simply does not have to shift public sentiment against the athletes. While many observers view the media blitz as some 12-dimensional chess move (He’s doing it to scare players via their family members who watch TV!), I’m not so sure. We sometimes cast too much faith in intelligent authority figures. It is just as possible that Stern is doing this out of ego, out of frustration, or out of ingrained NBA PR reflex. It is just as possible that a man who oversaw the NBA’s post-Jordan decline, a sputtering women’s league, Seattle’s departure, a tainted Suns-Spurs playoff series…might not be a very good commissioner–at least anymore.

Soon, the lockout will be settled, and it likely will have nothing to do with David and his bullhorn. But his negative ad campaign may linger. The less David Stern, the better.


Related posts:

  1. David Stern’s Business Tats
  2. Goodman League vs. Drew League wrap-up: notes from Northeast DC
  3. Nowhere Fast: The David Kahn Story
  4. Lockout: The TV Problem
  5. 2016: How much TV money will the NBA be making?
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

The NBA needs A LOT MORE MUNICIPALLY-OWNED TEAMS IN THE CITIES WHERE NBA FRANCHISES HAVE ARENAS. No new arenas should be built for the teams in areas where the current lockout NEGATIVELY affected local business owners and arena employees lost THEIR jobs to GREEDY PLAYERS and OBSTINATE OWNERS! WHAT A CROCK To SUGGEST THAT THE PLAYERS SHOULD START THEIR OWN LEAGUE!THESE GUYS DON'T HAVE MASTER'S DEGREES IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION! THE THING THEY DO BEST IS PLAY BASKETBALL-AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SHOULD STICK TO!

There weren't many fans who came back after the 1999 Lockout.There should be EVEN FEWER FANS IF THIS LOCKOUT DOESN'T COME TO AN END-AND QUICKLY.I blame the PLAYERS AND OWNERS. YOU DON'T NEED YOUR GAMES! STICKING TOGETHER AND SHOWING SOLIDARITY TO STICK IT TO BOTH SIDES IS MORE IMPORTANT. IF WE DON'T TAKE A STAND NOW WE'LL NEVER STOP PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE FOR NBA GAME TICKETS, NBA-RELATED MERCHANDISE AND OFTEN OVERPRICED AND OVERRATED CONCESSIONS AT THE NBA ARENAS!

I think a fan-led BOYCOTT of the NBA MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE BOTH SIDES-THE OWNERS AND PLAYERS AND THEIR UNION-LISTEN TO REASON! IT MAY BE THE ONLY WAY TO SAY "WE DON'T CARE IF THE NBA GOES DOWN THE SEWER!IT WILL BE ON YOUR COLLECTIVE HEADS IF IT DOES!"

The only way for the fans to have a say in how expensive NBA game tickets, NBA-related merchandise, and concessions should be is to BOYCOTT the NBA in order to make owners and players hammer out an agreement-OR LOSE THE FAN BASE FOR GOOD!

I prefer to be involved in an activity I've come to really enjoy doing myself to paying overpriced tickets to see grown men *****ing about how much they are-or are not-getting paid to play basketball.Unless and until the NBA owners are forced to see the light and UNDERPAY the players the NBA will continue to suck!

Shit, now I *really* think owners aren't going to back down. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Jordan White -- I can see what you mean about none of us having a say in the negotiations, but as many have pointed out, the communities that support NBA teams let owners that they like get away with a LOT. The Lebron Halo won Dan Gilbert the legislation to build Ohio's first casinos. Why do you think he was so "comic"al in denouncing Lebron as a traitor to the community? I'd bet that it was more that personal sour grapes -- Gilbert has a very strong vested interest in not getting saddled with responsibility for the worst thing that's happened to Cleveland basketball. He wants to go down as the guy who did everything he could to keep Lebron and there was a definite threat that he'd be seen as the guy who didn't do enough and let him go in free agency. All that stuff about vowing to win a title and all that -- I think it was damage control aimed at positioning himself as a nutball Cavs fan who the locals could identify with rather than an out of touch billionaire moron who didn't care about the fans enough to find a way to keep Lebron. Charlotte is a basketball crazy town that hated the last two guys who owned franchises there: George Shinn (who moved and had to sell to the league in NO) and Bob Johnson, who didn't really spend much time in the area and is rumored to have named the Bobcats after himself. ------- This is one of the sticky points I'm trying to figure out -- when the owners call for parity, they may not need it to be something that makes the league more popular on the whole, in global markets, etc (although Gilbert was working on getting Chinese investors back before Lebron THTTSB). Maybe the league becomes less popular when small market teams win, but those small market owners become heroes in their communities and politicians will more or less bend over backwards to accomodate their business interests. Being able to win or even go deep into the playoffs is a big deal for owners images. The guys who brought the Sonics to OKC can probably do no wrong these days as long (as they don't leave the state).

"We sometimes cast too much faith in intelligent authority figures" I spent at least an hour today trying to construct a sympathetic view of David Stern's silver-tongued thugism. The best I could come up with is "Maybe David Stern's trying to play up the threat of a season being lost so his big market owners push back against the small market guys or give them more concessions because maybe the BRI hardlining is secondary to owners who would be asked to share their local revenue demanding an unreasonable cut of BRI so small market teams would have to choose between high revenue sharing and having a season at all." That's the kind of convoluted reasoning it takes to position David Stern as anything but a guy who can't help but go all-in for a dominating win-lose resolution when a win-win is clearly possible because of all the money on the table. It's like I find myself trying to convince myself that DS is running a long con and if he wins it will be best for everybody. I really would feel better if I could convince myself that the people with power have it because they can see farther than the rest of us. ------- You also mentioned the post-Jordon/post-lockout era. It was weird reading about it that way because I've been thinking of it exclusively as the "zone+handchecking" era when the game worked its way towards unwatchability only to be saved by "no handchecking" and "Steve Nash to the Suns for $10m/yr." But thinking about it in terms of marketing -- without Jordan for Nike to deify, they would probably have gone with Kobe, except for his Colorado adventure and the sorry state of the Lakers chemistry. My point, tentatively, is that it really might have been and era of basketball without a guy for marketing whiz types to really hunker down and get behind. How many "be like mike" or "we are all witnesses" ad campaigns were there during that time period? I'd contend that Nike consistently does a better job marketing NBA superstars than the NBA ever has... ------ Finally, yeah, the less David Stern says, the better. It's only too easy to turn middle aged white folks going through a recession against "spoiled" young black millionaires. That's practically race-baiting in the way it plays into outgroup stereotyping. My only optimistic qualifier is that *maybe* he's talking about cancelling christmas to put urgency into the owners' camp, since the players are probably less tuned in to that sort of message -- most of them won't play on 12.25 anyway (though he's slandering them seperately).

The odd thing about this NBA PR war is that it ultimately doesn't matter who wins. Fans, writers, bloggers, all have zero influence on the outcome of the lockout. Sure, we can whine, write, and tweet about it, but none of those actions will impact the structure of the new CBA. And yet, it seems as if both the players, with their "#StandUnited" movement and the owners, with Stern's "we've made countless concessions," are both obsessed with winning the public's support. Each side trying to establish themselves as the victim, while framing the opposing side as unreasonable or uncooperative. What they fail to realize, or least appear to not recognize, is that the casual fan, hell, even the dedicated fan, only cares so much about who is the victim. If the players accepted a CBA with only 3 year, non-guaranteed contracts, a hard cap, two contract mulligans, and a 60-40 BRI in favor of the owners, there'd be those who would write about how the players got screwed, but that sentiment would fade as soon as the season started. Likewise, if the owners accepted a deal that greatly favored the players, (however unlikely that may be), it'd be the same story: analyze the deal, talk about how unfair it is, then forget it for the next six years as play resumes. The owners and the players don't have to win us over. This isn't a trial, neither side is the plaintiff nor defendant, and the fans aren't the jury that decides the outcome. The only thing the players and owners need to do is agree on a new CBA, and the rest, like this is rant, is commentary.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] and full maracas. A commissioner’s job is broadly defined, and if you rip Stern for failure in one aspect, you’re bound to hear that his real job is devoted to serving another [...]

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes