NBA Lockout: Back to Business

I have followed the events surrounding the NBA lockout for quite some time.  At times, I was unsure when or if the two sides would reach an agreement.  I wanted to believe cooler heads would prevail and the two sides could agree.  However, based on the articles and interviews I reviewed, it seemed that egos’ were impeding the process.  It seemed Derek Fisher and Billy Hunter did not want to appear weakened by the idle threats issued by David Stern.  After all, their jobs were to broker and secure the best deal for the Players’ Association.  The manner in which they couched their argument for the public-at-large was not effective.  Had I not familiarized myself with the specifics of the arguments, I could have been fooled into believing the deal was strictly about money.  David Stern used his excellent lawyering and oratorical skills in a way Billy Hunter and Derek Fisher failed to do.  He spoke in specific terms and said specifically that the owners were making concessions and even described what some of the concessions were.  He masterfully discussed that they were prepared to offer the players 50% of basketball-related income.  Although this was only the tip of the iceberg, not too many things appear to be fairer than splitting profits equally.  Fisher and Hunter spoke in vague terms.  I think by proceeding in that manner, they allowed the public to form an opinion that the lockout was really about billionaires and millionaires bickering over money.  Not too many people can respect that position and particularly during the current tough economic climate. 

Selfishly, I and many other NBA fans viewed the lockout in terms of what we were being deprived of.  Fundamentally, I believe this is wrong for a number of reasons.   The lockout really symbolizes another portion of the population dealing with unemployment.  As we sometimes forget, behind every NBA franchise, there are marketing and advertising departments, lawyers, physical therapists, doctors, surgeons, business executives, vendors, sanitation workers and the list goes on and on.  The NBA players are an atypical portion of the population because they earn millions of dollars each year.  It makes sense to not sympathize with a rich athlete because he should not lose his home or be reduced to relying on public assistance in the absence of an NBA season.  Conversely, compare an NBA player with a sanitation worker, who may only make minimum wage or may barely be able to afford necessaries of life.  If the various NBA arenas are not open for business, these people do not have work.  If they do not have work, it naturally follows they do not get paid.  It is that simple and those are the people we tend to forget about because we want to see NBA basketball.  I am thankful NBA basketball will return on Christmas day for my own selfish reasons, and I am also happy the non-millionaires can resume their lives.

I reviewed the new proposed Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and it does not seem to propose many drastic changes.  One of the players’ biggest concerns was whether guaranteed contracts would be eliminated. If you watch SportsCenter, you have undoubtedly heard commentators discussing and dissecting terms of contracts.  For instance, in the National Football League (“NFL”), contract terms may read as follows:”John Player signed a five year contract worth fifty (50) million dollars with twenty (20) million dollars guaranteed.”  In the NBA, however, the majority of contracts are guaranteed deals.  A guaranteed contract provides a great deal of stability for the player.  On the flip side, it can serve as a liability to ownership because they have to honor the contract regardless of whether the player plays another game.  Grant Hill signed a major contract to play for the Orlando Magic and almost immediately suffered serious injuries, which prevented him from playing basketball for long periods of time.  The Orlando Magic, to my knowledge, still paid his salary, even though he was unable to perform his obligations pursuant to the contract because it was “guaranteed.”  Any person with a basic understanding of business knows this model can burden a team for years if the player is unable to perform.  It leaves the teams with little recourse.  The specific language in the proposed CBA is as follows: “Salary guarantees remain the same under the 2005 CBA; i.e., there will be no limitations on a player’s ability to receive 100% guaranteed salary in all seasons of a contract.”

Once the season begins, there are many interesting story lines that will unfold before our eyes. I am interested in seeing where Chris Paul will end up. He is easily the best point guard in the league and I hope he ends up on a team where he will have a legitimate chance to compete for a NBA championship.  Also, to all the Boston Celtics fans, this is most likely their last chance to compete and be considered an elite team.  Soon, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce will be physically incapable of carrying the franchise and it will need to rebuild.  I am a big Lebron James and Dwyane Wade fan and I am interested in seeing how they regroup this year.  They both receive a great deal of hate, but like Jay-Z said “N***as hate ballers these days, ain’t that like Lebron James, ain’t that just like D-Wade.”  Whether you love or hate these guys, there collaboration on the court forced non-NBA fans and NBA fans alike to tune in and watch and for that, their presence is good for the NBA.  The Dallas Mavericks were somewhat of a surprise last year.  This year, they bring back basically the same team that won the NBA Championship last year and they will presumably have a healthy Caron Butler to add into the mix.  The Oklahoma City Thunder is an interesting group as well with Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook and they will be exciting to watch.  I would be remiss if I failed to mention Kobe Bryant and his L.A. Lakers. He had off-season knee surgery and there are reports that his knee is in the best condition it has been in years.  The reigning MVP, Derrick Rose, and the Chicago Bulls are a formidable team as well.  I am very interested in seeing how these story lines will unfold.

Lastly, I am not sure how the lockout has affected the public-at-large’s view of the NBA brand.  I categorize the public-at-large into three broad categories.  The die-hards fans will not be affected by the lockout and will be happy the NBA is back.  They will still buy tickets and watch games as if the lockout never happened. Next, you have the people who like to watch basketball and also understand the business side of the league.  I believe they will be largely unaffected as well.  Finally, the casual NBA watcher may be turned off by the months and months of bickering and may decide that their money and time could be spent doing something other than watching NBA basketball.  The last lockout occurred in 1999-2000 and the league played an abbreviated season.  This was a bad move for the NBA then and it was not a good move now.  However, the difference in the time periods is that the present NBA is wrought with NBA stars and it recently enjoyed one of the most exciting years it has ever produced. Regardless of the economic impact the lockout may have, I am excited and glad I will be able to enjoy NBA basketball on Christmas day.

Peace    

Should A Coach Be Bigger Than The Institution He Serves?

College campuses across the nation are dominated by individuals who have become larger than the institutions they belong to. How does this happen?  Why does this happen?  The answer to either of these questions is not simple.  The same basic premise applies in any setting when one individual becomes bigger than the institution itself.  Usually when it happens, tragedy follows.  I can think of only a few instances when the individual became bigger than the institution and tragedy did not strike.  Michael Jordan became larger than life during his time with the Chicago Bulls but he managed to help his franchise win six NBA championships.  Other than that one outlier situation, most situations end in tragedy.  This leads me to the current situation at Penn State University, but I will discuss that a little later. 

Let us start with the facts.  Most universities were founded in the 18^th or 19^th centuries. With an institution existing for so many years, why is it that one charismatic leader can enter an institution and become bigger than that which he belongs?  This is again not a simple question and the answer will not be a simple one either.  The idea of one man becoming larger than the institution and the outcry from the citizenry to prevent it from happening makes me think of ancient Rome.  Many people who lived and survived through the reign of emperors would do almost anything to avoid tyrannical, non-democratic rule.  There are stories of men being afraid to have the appearance of too much power because they feared they would be killed because people would think they wanted to crush the republic and establish a dictatorship.  Hundreds of years ago people realized that too much power vested in any one person would likely lead to a “god complex,” and ultimately lead to destruction.   

Should coaches be revered and applauded for their athletic exploits?  Yes.  But should they become bigger than the institution and be treated like deities?  No.  As the Romans knew and so many other cultures have discovered over the years, one man or woman should never become larger than the institution itself.  From a practical perspective, the fact that an institution is larger than one person provides great protection for the institution.  If an employee makes statements or acts in a manner inconsistent with the institution’s mission, that person’s employment can be terminated.  However, when one man becomes larger than the institution, his moments of glory and shame alike will equally be considered a part of the institution.    

Penn State University is currently suffering from a major moment of shame and embarrassment.  Joe Paterno was the head football coach at the university for well over forty years.  He has been idolized and in many respects, deified for his ability to coach football. He has guided his team to multiple national championships and up until now, has maintained a clean public image.  With that being said, Penn State is certainly experiencing the secondary effects of idolizing one man.  No matter what comes of the allegations, Paterno’s fall from glory is seen as a major misstep by Penn State University.  Because of his status, he is inextricably tied to the institution. I watched a news special that captured footage of Penn State’s campus and its students a few hours after Joe Paterno was fired.  They interviewed students and some of them said “Joe Paterno is a god,” while others said “Joe Paterno is Penn State.”  Needless to say, both statements are inaccurate and ridiculous.  Joe Paterno is part of an old guard that has dominated college sports for decades.  Bobby Bowden, Dean Smith and even Coach K are a part of this guard.  Again, this is not a knock on the men because they are blameless as to their wide following and great influence.  Likewise, it is safe to say these men made or make more money than the chancellors or presidents from each respective institution.  I would be willing to bet students who attend the schools, or the public-at-large, cannot name the chancellor or president at any of the schools but I am sure they could name the coaches.

If the allegations are true, the crimes Sandusky is charged with are egregious and deplorable.  I understand the public policy of our laws to be in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves.  It seems the relevant laws of Pennsylvania are not strict in terms of individual’s duties to report child abuse.  I have not conducted independent research on the laws governing the Penn State matter, but by all accounts, it appears Joe Paterno did not violate the law.  When he heard of the alleged abuse, he was only required to inform his supervisor.  Apparently, he informed his superior and fulfilled his legal obligation.  This raises yet another question.  At what point does an individual’s moral compass become the guiding force, even in the face of less stringent laws?  I believe Joe Paterno should have followed up with the proper authorities directly.  After all, the allegations, if true, are grotesque.  Because Joe Paterno had become such an “institution” and relevant laws were not strict it made the environment ripe for a “cover up.”  University administrators at schools across the country discover hazing during fraternity and sorority initiations all the time despite individuals’ best efforts to cover it up.  I am not buying that other members of Penn State were not aware of the allegations of child abuse. 

Again, minors are protected by the laws of this nation because they are unable to protect themselves. Think about it, states draft statutory rape laws because minors are deemed not to have the mental capacity to form the necessary intent to engage in a sexual act.  Convictions under these laws do not require intent from a defendant.  Conviction under these laws merely requires an act.  In the same vein as the statutory rape laws, it is sad and deplorable that Pennsylvania’s state laws failed to protect those children.  These laws also make it easy for individuals and institutions alike to wipe their hands and say, “I did what I was legally obligated to do.”  Yes, a person may satisfy the law but I believe we all have a moral compass that should guide us as well. My thoughts are certainly with the victims and their families of the alleged crimes.  I hope we have learned that we cannot deify men.  I also hope we stop creating environments where children can be abused and people can get off by saying: “legally, I did all what was required of me.” 

Peace