Text Messaging: How it Ruined our Ability to Communicate Effectively

As I get older, I often reminisce about past times and how our society has changed.  It is funny and ironic because I also remember my dad telling me how things used to be back in his day.  Now, when I have children, I will be saying the same things to them. I remember a time, not too long ago, when we did not have cellular phones.  If we did, we had the bag phone, or the phone Nino Brown made popular in the movie, New Jack City.  Do you remember pagers or beepers?  I remember going to Exxon, or BP in Winston-Salem and returning a page on a pay phone.  When I left my parents house, I kept a quarter in my pocket for that very reason.  During my freshmen year of college, I had a cell phone, but I had limited minutes.  By my junior year, my phone was able to send and receive text messages.  Before that time, we had to dial a number, press send and actually “talk” to the person at the other end of the phone.  The ability to communicate effectively is very important and I feel that text messages, emails, bbm’s and other non-personal communicative methods have seriously set our society back.

Getting to Know Someone of the Opposite Sex

Back in the day, when you mustered up enough courage to approach a beautiful young woman, you knew that getting her telephone number was only half the battle.  You knew that you would have to call her.  You knew you would need to be able to hold an intelligent conversation if you wanted things to go further.  You had to decide when the best time to call was.  Should you call the next day?  Should you play it cool and wait a few days?  Should you call her the same day?  (You might seem pressed)  Should I call in the afternoon, or should I wait until the night to call.  If I call at night, what message would that send to her with respect to the type of woman I think she is?    Most people had all or at least some of these questions swirling around in their minds. Once you finally called the young lady, it was time to talk to her.  This lead to another set of questions.  Should you lead the conversation?  Should you allow her to lead the conversation and show her your keen ability to listen?  No matter how you answered the questions in your head, you knew that you had to talk to the young lady.  You did not have the ability to send a text message.  You could not send her a message on Facebook or Twitter.  In my opinion, those people who text and never call really (1) don’t have good communication skills or (2) are not that interested in hearing what you have to say.

The Effect of Lack of Communication Skills

If you have ever been to a networking event, you have certainly seen the person who looks like a deer in head lights.  They are inevitably stationed at the food or drink bar, and look uncomfortable.  I am so happy I came of age at a time when communication skills were important in society.  Networking leads to jobs, contacts, and opportunities.  I fear the younger generation is ill equipped to network and hold conversations that may lead to opportunities.  I cannot blame this problem solely on text messages, however.  Email has also contributed to the younger generations’ inability to effectively communicate.  It is so bad in some professional offices that employees send emails to people only a few feet from them.  Email is a fantastic invention and undoubtedly has improved communication and made it a lot faster and efficient.  However, emailing instead of picking of the telephone to make a phone call can have an adverse effect as well.  For instance, when following up on a job lead, I believe people should call the possible employer.  Calling a person sends the message that you are confident; you are not hiding behind an email; and you are seriously pursuing the position.  The potential employer can hear and appreciate how much you want the job.  Emotion cannot always be understood through emails or text messages.

Miscommunication is Rampant

How many times have you sent a text message and the receiver misunderstood your intended message?  You may intend the message to be sarcastic, but not crass or mean.  When the message is misunderstood by the receiver, it causes serious problems.  This is equally applicable to emails.  I received emails in the past that I had no idea what the sender intended.  I interpreted it in one way and the receiver intended to convey a completely different message.  Also, despite the best networks in the world, sometimes people DO NOT receive text messages and emails.  People become enraged and are ready to fire a retaliatory response when they send a message and feel they are being ignored.  I must admit, this is certainly not a good feeling.  However, had you picked up the phone to call the person, you would be able to speak to the person, or leave a voice mail which is more reliable than a text message or email.  I have been accused of not answering a text message before and it is frustrating especially when you did not receive a message.  In the Turner Law Building at NCCU School of Law, if Verizon Wireless was your service provider, you did not have service on the first floor, or basement level of the school.  If someone sent you a text message while you were in either place, you did not receive it.  How many relationships suffered and will continue to suffer because of failed communication?  The moral of this story is twofold: 1) take communication seriously, and (2) do not rely on an email or text message when a phone call is more reliable.

Peace 

Tupac and Biggie: Would They Survive in Today's Rap Game?

Today’s topic of discussion was raised during a conversation I had last weekend.  As I sat at a wing spot in Greensboro having wings and watching the Baltimore Ravens and New England Patriots NFL playoff game, we discussed various topics including the current state of hip hop music and who we believe are the best emcees in hip hop currently and all time.  Jay-Z is  my favorite current emcee.  An individual, who shall remain nameless, mentioned that Drake was his favorite hip hop artist.  That choice was shocking to me, but then again, I believe Drake appeals to a younger demographic.  I believe his biggest supporters are women and individuals born in the early 1990’s.  No quicker than I heard the Drake response, he asked: “would Biggie and Tupac be relevant if they were around today?”  I had to catch myself because I had the Ed Lover “C’mon Son” facial expression.  Then I thought to myself that everyone is entitled to an opinion.  In response, I said “the more important question is: “would Drake be relevant if Tupac and Biggie were still around?”  I believe Drake and other contemporary emcees were indoctrinated into the hip hop game at a time when there was a serious lack of creativity.  In short, it created an opening for new artists.  Drake stepped in and helped fill the gaping hole in the hip hop community.

Tupac Shakur

 

Biggie and Tupac were larger than life characters when they were alive, and have maintained, if not elevated, their respective statuses posthumously.  Both Biggie and Tupac experienced unrivaled success with respect to records sold.  Tupac’s estate released many posthumous albums promoting Tupac’s lyrical skills.  He was more than an artist; in many respects, he was a movement.  Tupac allowed life’s contradictions to run rampant throughout his music.  One day he made a song uplifting his people and the next day he might make a song expressing the anger, and frustration of being a black man in America.  I believe the duality of thought displayed by Tupac epitomizes what most people feel from day-to-day.  The biggest difference is most people will not verbalize their feelings.  Think about it.  Some days you may wake up and have positive feelings about life.  The next day, you may receive the worst news and feel downtrodden.  I believe the duality of thought is natural; yet, musicians consistently fail to expose the good and bad through the lyrics of their songs.  Nobody is perfect.  I also believe Tupac was one of the artists respected by all sectors of the hip hop population i.e., “the backpackers,” “the hard core contingent,” and “casual listeners.”  Tupac surpassed generic labels such as “hip hop artist,” or “emcee.”  His talent and passion elevated him to a status with all time great musicians.  He was not confined to a specific genre of music.  Would he have survived in today’s rap world?  Absolutely.

Notorious B.I.G.

Biggie Smalls flourished during an era when lyrics, storytelling and the art of “emceeing” were all that mattered.  He emerged from talent rich New York when a catchy hook or good beat were not enough to garner respect of peers and fans alike.  During the early 1990’s, being a good emcee and making quality music were keys to success.  Let me be abundantly clear—success does not necessarily equate to respect.  Drake is successful, but is he well respected in most or all circles of hip hop?  No.  Certain people love their crafts and would do it for free if they had to.  Love for the craft has been corroded, and in some places, lost forever because of the lure of making millions of dollars.  Do not get me wrong, I am not mad at anyone for using their talents to make money.  However, I am more impressed and respect artists who make music with passion; basketball players who play the game for the love of the game; and attorneys who are passionate about helping their clients.  I apologize for the brief tangent; let me get back on topic.  During the 1990’s the list of talented emcees seems to be endless.  Biggie, Nas, Tupac, Jay-Z, Outcast, Big L, Big Pun, Mobb Deep, Lil Kim, Mos Def, Common, Wu Tang Clan, Snoop, Dr. Dre, Ras Kass, Capone & Noreaga, Camp Lo, Rakim, KRS One, Kool G. Rap etc etc.  The list of artists is impressive but yet B.I.G. rose to the top of the game.  Why?  He carved out a niche that was similar but yet different than his peers.  He was passionate about making a better living for himself and his family.  He produced quality music and he, with the help of Diddy, infused hip hop and R & B.  That marriage spawned a style that has produced some of the greatest songs of all time.  You ask me if he would have survived during today’s hip hop game?  Without a doubt. 

Successful v. Respected

What is success?  The dictionary defines it as: “the favorable outcome of something attempted.”  How is success measured with respect to the hip hop industry?  Record sales?  Platinum chains? Other factors?  What is respect?  The dictionary defines it as: “an attitude of deference, admiration or esteem.  How is respect measured?  Street credibility?  Subject matter?  Lyricism?  Being successful and being respected are not necessary the same thing.  In fact, in many instances, they are polar opposites.  For instance, I believe Nelly is successful because he has sold millions of records.  However, I also believe he is not respected by true hip hop heads impressed by lyrics, production, subject matter, presentation, flow, etc.  On the other end of the spectrum is Mos Def, or Black Thought, who are both widely respected as lyrical emcees.  Neither artist has sold albums at the rate Nelly has, but I would be willing to bet that they are more widely respected for their skills.  If artists are measured strictly by record sales, maybe these very talented artists are not successful.  In a perfect world, artists would prefer to be respected and successful.  Unfortunately for them, and for fans of true music, it is difficult to accomplish both.  It almost seems that artists must sacrifice one to accomplish the other. 

Opening in Hip Hop

During the past 5-7 years, there has been a huge opening in the hip hop game with respect to creativity and quality music.  Hip Hop staples such as Nas and Outcast were not recording nearly as much music.  Also, the crowd who grew up listening to those iconic artists matured.  The young kids and young adults who were diehard fans in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s had become professionals and had families.  In short, the hip hop generation matured and there was an untapped market—14-22 year olds who were not as connected to the aforementioned hip hop legends.  That generation yearned for new super stars.  In came Drake, and a few other artists.  So, if Tupac and Biggie were still alive, much like Jay-Z, they would still control the market of people 25 and older.  Because of their talent and influence, they would also impact the younger generation.  In short, it would be business as usual for Tupac and Biggie.

What do you think?

Peace

Kobe Bryant: Last of a Dying Breed

Whether you love him, loathe him or do not have an opinion of Kobe Bryant, he is a first ballot Hall of Famer.  Even at his age, 33, he is still arguably the best player in the game.  He is the oldest player in NBA history to record four consecutive 40 point games.  He also happens to be the last of a dying breed of NBA players who play through injuries in an effort to entertain fans.  Obviously, no reasonable fan wants a player to seriously injure themselves in the name of entertainment.  However, we do expect players to forge through minor discomforts as we do every day at our jobs.  Might I add that we do so for a fraction of the salaries NBA players command.  Not too long ago, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone and Reggie Miller played in the NBA.  I do not recall a sprained ankle, or a headache keeping them from playing.  In fact, Influenza could not thwart Jordan’s ability to play the game he loves.  Nowadays, NBA players miss game for almost any reason.  The bevy of excuses NBA players use nowadays is frustrating to me as a fan of the game.  Kobe Bryant is a player who is determined to play the game he loves no matter what the cost may be.  He is truly the last of a dying breed.      

Kobe Bryant was drafted in 1996 by the Charlotte Hornets.  He was drafted number thirteen overall.  Wait, you mean to tell me there were 12 better players drafted ahead of Kobe Bryant?  YES.  However, at the time, Kobe was a high school player and many of the players drafted ahead of him were college basketball stars and were thought to be safer picks.  I find it rather funny that Kobe had the foresight and maturity as an 18 year old to broker his way out of Charlotte but failed to sign a prenuptial agreement with his wife a few years later. I digress.  If Kobe was drafted thirteenth overall, who were the players drafted before him?  The class of 1996 was special indeed with Allen Iverson, Steve Nash, Ray Allen, and Stephon Marbury being a part of the class.  Of these great players, only two remain in the NBA (Ray Allen and Steve Nash), and Kobe is clearly better than them both.

Kobe has been called selfish many times during his career.  There may be a hint of truth to the accusation.  However, not even the most unreasonable critic can say Kobe does not want to win.  His competitive nature has been compared to that of Michael Jordan.  Obviously, Michael Jordan is the greatest to ever play the game, but Kobe has a similar competitive nature.  To that end, if you watch him carefully, he wants to guard the other team’s best player.  He does not want to wait until the fourth quarter or crunch time to do so either.  He wants to guard Ray Allen, Dwyane Wade and other great shooting guards from the tip off until the final buzzer sounds.  How many bonafide superstars or even marginal players compete at that level on both ends of the court the entire game?  I’ll wait.  Basketball is a team sport but in the NBA, superstars win championships.  If Kobe Bryant outplays Kevin Durant, the Lakers will likely be successful. With that said, I believe there is some validity in superstars winning individual matchups during games. 

Just a few short years ago, people questioned Kobe’s place amongst the all time great players because he had not won a championship as the focal point of the team.  I disagree with the school of thought that makes winning championships the most important factor in determining the worth of a great player.  If fans adopted that logic, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, and Reggie Miller were not great players.  The entire idea is ridiculous in my opinion.  During his first three championships, he was the second best player on his team.  He was the second best player to Shaquille O’Neal when he was in his prime.  Kobe never liked being the number two guy and that separates him from some of his contemporary competitors.  He was determined to win a ring as the clear number one guy.  He accomplished that feat not once, but twice, and solidified his place as the second best shooting guard in the history of the game.

Kobe Bryant was so athletic and explosive when he entered the league.  He regularly appeared on Sportscenter highlight reels because of his athletic dunks, blocks, steals and open court, one-on-one moves.  At that point of his career he was not a consistent jump shooter.  He was so talented that it did not matter and he could get all the way to the rim at will.  That last line sounds eerily like the current version of Lebron James.  Now, Kobe is 33 years old and a relative elder statesman in the NBA.  His game is not predicated on athletic ability nearly as much as it once was.  Instead, he relies on superior balance, experience, skill, and intellect.  His footwork in the post is impeccable.  He also has the best up-and-under move in the game.  His fade-a-way jumpshot is indefensible (sound like another player later in his career?).

The Sports world is infatuated and determined to crown somebody as the next Michael Jordan.  Players such as Grant Hill, Vince Carter, Lebron James, and Kobe have been compared to MJ.  This type of comparison can certainly bring great pressure upon a player to measure up to the athletic accomplishments of Michael Jordan.  Kobe is clearly the closest player to MJ even though he is still nowhere near as dominant as MJ was.  Michael Jordan won six championships in his career and won the NBA Finals MVP each time.  That means that when the season was on the line, he rose to the top to ensure victory for his team.  He did not play with a dominant post player at any point of his career.  Kobe had Shaquille O’Neal and Pau Gasol.  Michael Jordan was the best offensive and defensive player on the court each time he entered an arena.  I do not want this to turn into an article about MJ, but I believe the point needs to be cemented that there is only one Michael Jordan and all others pale in comparison.

Kobe Bryant is a great player and he deserves respect from people for his on-court talents.  I could care less about what he does off the court because he is human just like anyone else.  Kobe will play through injury and pain because he loves the game that much.  He gives maximum effort when he is on the court; he is truly the last of a dying breed.

Peace    

Mixtapes 2012: Fab and Ross

Recently I have been listening to a bevy of good music.  From the looks of things, 2012 is going to be a good year for hip hop and we may even have a good, old fashioned hip hop battle on our hands as well.  Fabolous released “There is No Competition 3 (Death Comes in 3’s)” right after Christmas 2011.  Rick Ross released “Rich Forever” a few days ago.  Rick Ross’ mixtape is my favorite and that includes T.I.’s mixtape. 

Fab’s mixtape is the third installment in his “there is no competition” series.  The mixtape is good and he definitely provides witty punch lines, as usual.  Although “There is No Competition Two” is probably my favorite of the trio, the third installment is good.  This mixtape definitely sounds and feels like a mixape and not like an actual album like  J. Cole’s critically acclaimed “Friday Night Lights,” or Elzhi’s “Elmatic” mixtape.  Unf*ckwitable is one of my favorite tracks because he seems to exclaim how he feels about his lyrics and his crew.  He boasts “24/7 365 how the game dead when I’m still alive.”  In another line he rhymes “You’ll would never measure up using my ruler, you more soft than a second year high schooler, my n*gga Hov told me finish my breakfast and now I’m looking at you n*ggas like breakfast.”  I am not sure if the line is directed at anyone in particular, but it is one of my favorite lines.  Then on Lord Knows he went in on Plaxico Burress and called him Cheddar Bob for shooting himself.  He also addressed the Ray J situation in comical fashion.  He rhymed “you don’t want them n*ggas in your house though, trying to see if you got indoor/outdoor.”  This was in response to Ray J calling into a New York Radio station ranting and sounding like his name should be Ray J Shakur.  Fab was at his best on BET trading verses with Jadakiss and the Ghost, Styles P.  Listening to this track makes me want to hear another Lox album.  The Lox is one of my favorite hip hop groups and they have not released an album in a very long time.  She Did It goes hard as well though and he rhymes “You a G but that letter don’t fit you the best, girl you got all them curves so girl you an S.”  I can respect that he has the hard tracks for the street but also shows love to the ladies.  Overall, the mixtape is dope and I think he definitely created a buzz for whenever he drops another studio album. 

During my Christmas break, I had a conversation with a child hood friend who works in the music industry.  We discussed Rick Ross, amongst other relevant hip hop artists, and he said, and I agree, that Rick Ross makes great music and it is all about entertainment.  It does not matter that he does or does not live the life he portrays in his music.  One thing I will say about Ross is that he makes quality music each time he puts out an album, mixtape, or verse.  I cannot say that about many artists nowadays.  You can tell that he loves music and is passionate about his craft.  This is refreshing to me in an era where some artists seem to care only about the next single or ringtone.  “Rich Forever” is a serious mixtape and it sounds like a studio album.  Triple Beam Dream might be my favorite track.  As much as I like Ross, I like Nas even more and he killed the track.  I think people will learn one day to not go after Nas when he is focused.  He rhymed first on Raekwon’s Verbal Intercourse and as good as Rae and Ghost performed, they were a distant second to Nas.  He came out strong and rhymed “a project minded individual criminal tactics, us black kids born with birth defects, we hyperactive, mentally sex-crazed dysfunctional they described us they liars, the end of the day, we f*cking survivors.”  DOPE.  I am also feeling the Rich Forever track featuring John Legend.  It is pretty dope that he enlisted John Legend to lay vocals for the track on a mixtape that he gave to his fans for free.  This track rivals the Triple Beam Dream track in my book.  He starts off talking over the track and telling a story of how he came into the game with Hustlin.  Then, the beat drops and he rhymes "Ciroc, no glass, smiling women in my presence, tall supermodels always fall in my possession, Atlanta Housewives taking pictures in my section, but I only have affection for young [women] with aggression."

Stay Schemin is a nice track featuring Drake.  Ross was focused on this track but I could have done without French Montana’s verse.  The real reason the track is so heavily discussed is because Drake responded to Common’s So Sweet diss track.  I have to give Drake some credit because his verse was dope.  He rhymes "That's why I see no need to compete with nigg-s like y'll, I just ask that when you see me you speak up nigg-s that's all, don't be ducking like you never wanted nothing, it's feeling like rap changed, there was a time when it was rugged, back when if a nigg- reached it was for the weapon, nowadays nigg-s reach just to sell they record"

Although his verse is hard, I think he must have neglected to research his opponent.  Common went at Ice Cube on The B*tch in You.  If you know anything about hip hop, you know that Cube is one of the best battle rappers of all time.  Common started his rhyme off using Drake’s song, Motto against him.  Then he drops the dopest line of the rap battle thus far when he rhymes “I’m taking too long with this amateur guy, you ain’t wet nobody n*gga, you Canada Dry.”  I think the game needs a nice battle that will stay on wax and is all about competition between two emcees. 

Peace

David Stern: Is He a Hater?

Yesterday, while working out, I heard that the Los Angeles Lakers had pulled off yet another blockbuster deal.  According to reports, they had agreed in principle to acquire the rights of Chris Paul in a three team trade.  Supposedly, they traded Pau Gasol to the Houston Rockets and Lamar Odom to the New Orleans Hornets.  The trade included other players as well, but those three were the biggest names involved.  The trade seemed to be really fair to each respective team.  Some people were upset because they hate the Lakers.  I, on the other hand, am not a Laker fan, nor a Laker naysayer.  I am a fan of basketball and I recognize that Kobe Bryant is a top ten all time basketball player.  During his career, he has never played with a true, dominant point guard.  This was true partially because the triangle offense does not require a “true” point guard. Now, Kobe is at a different stage of his career and his athletic ability is not as jaw dropping as it once was.  As such, it would be very interesting to see how a player like Chris Paul could make his life a lot easier and bring even more excitement to the NBA. Just as quickly as I called my dad, and talked to a few of my closest friends about the trade, I received word that the trade had been retracted.

At first, I called David Stern a “hater” and a few other choice words.  Then I thought about my quick conclusion and decided to take a closer look at the issues.  As much as I disagree with his decision, he was within his right to veto the trade.  Every NBA trade is subject to the approval of the NBA or David Stern.  I have watched the NBA for a number of years, and I have never heard of a trade being vetoed by the Commissioner.  So, that begs the question: what made this trade so different?  For starters, the New Orleans Hornets are owned by the NBA.  This is atypical, as I believe the other NBA franchises are owned by private individuals or groups of investors.  With the NBA owning the Hornets, it allowed Stern to have even more control over the deal.  As Commissioner, and owner of the Hornets, he has an obligation to make decisions in the best interest of the Hornets, and ultimately the NBA.  David Stern wants the New Orleans Hornets franchise to have as much value as possible so that when it is sold, the NBA will reap the financial benefits. With a franchise player like Chris Paul on the team, the franchise has a higher value and more individuals would likely purchase the team. However, without a franchise player, the value of the team plummets.  No matter what David Stern wants, it is unfair to have what he wants at the expense of another individual’s right to freely change teams.

Some owners such as, Dan Gilbert, have contested the idea of allowing players to control their own destinies.  This is pretty funny considering he never had an issue with player movement so long as Lebron James played for the Cleveland Cavaliers.  Now, his fortunes have changed and he is adamantly against player movement.  I cannot respect a man who loves the system when it benefits him, and then hates the very same system when it does not work in his favor.  Oscar Robertson fought hard during the 1970’s for players’ free agency rights and their general ability to switch teams.  Also, by way of contract law, citizens are allowed to freely contract so long as the contract does not violate public policy.  I seriously doubt the Lakers trade violated any public policy.  I understand the small market team owners are nervous that superstars will not come to their cities or that they will not sign long term contract extensions.  As they say, “that is part of the price of doing business.”  The United States prides itself on being a land ripe with opportunities and ability to participate in the free market.  To that end, small market owners must rely on the NBA draft, free agency and good luck to get superstar talent. 

There have been times when small market teams landed great players who stayed with their respective teams for long periods of time.  The San Antonio Spurs drafted Tim Duncan and the Minnesota Timberwolves landed Kevin Garnett. Both players signed at least one contract extension with their respective team. Most recently, people were upset about Lebron James and Chris Bosh signing contracts to join the Miami Heat as free agents.  Also, many people have likened that situation with the current Los Angeles Lakers failed trade attempt.  That situation is different than the move the Lakers attempted to make.  Chris Paul is not a free agent and he technically could not make his team trade him.  He still has contractual obligations, whereas Lebron James and Chris Bosh did not.  This situation is closer to the Carmelo Anthony trade that occurred last year.  Carmelo let it be known that he would not re sign with the Denver Nuggets once he became a free agent, so it was in their best interest to trade him and receive some value for his services.  During negotiations, I believe that is called leverage and it should be used to accomplish the goal at hand.  The small market owners need to get over the notion that they can stop players from going where they want to go.  That is not in the best interest of the NBA.  I guess they fear an NBA with four or five “super teams,’ such as the 1980s with the Lakers, Pistons and Celtics.  Sure, some of the parody may be missing, to a certain extent.  However, what is lost in terms of parody would be gained in showmanship and overall interest in the NBA.  Either way, players are free to make moves that are in their best interests, and owners should not be allowed to interfere.

Peace

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