National Basketball Association criticisms and controversies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Basketball Association has faced a multitude of criticisms from sports writers and fans. Motivations for criticism of the league vary from racial and generational bias to anger over dubious calls by referees.

Contents 1 Racial and cultural issues 1.1 Hip Hop 1.2 Pacers-Pistons brawl 1.3 Dress Code 1.4 Age limit 2 Conspiracy theories 2.1 Accusations from the Milwaukee Bucks 2.2 Game six of the 2002 Western Conference Final 2.3 Accusations by Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks 2.4 1985 NBA Draft 2.5 Michael Jordan gambling suspension 3 Accusations of network bias 3.1 NBC 4 Other controversies 4.1 Latrell Sprewell chokes coach 4.2 New game ball 5 References

[edit] Racial and cultural issues

[edit] Hip Hop

Many have criticized the NBA for embracing "Hip-hop culture". While some observers have argued that this criticism has more to do with race than hip-hop itself, it is a fact that the league is very much connected to the hip-hop generation. Rappers Nelly and Jay-Z have ownership stakes in NBA teams (the Charlotte Bobcats and New Jersey Nets respectively), and many artists have worn NBA throwback jerseys in music videos. In turn, the NBA plays rap and hip-hop in arenas during games, and ABC/ESPN uses the music during its coverage. Players in the NBA have tried rap or hip-hop themselves (Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant and notoriously, Ron Artest are some examples) and several also dress and act in ways that are in accordance with hip-hop culture (for example, the tattoos and jewelery worn by several players).

This has helped build the league's popularity among what some would call "urban" circles, while hurting its credibility with corporate, middle-class, suburban audiences. Since 1998, the NBA's television ratings have dropped considerably, and criticism of the league has mounted to the point where some columnists have freely referred to players in the league as 'thugs' in columns and referred to the league as 'violent'. Even on the night that legendary NBA head coach Red Auerbach died, Boston radio host Eddie Andelman, in an interview with ESPNEWS, made sure to note that the late Celtics coach would never have put up with the "thugs" and "bums" he (referring to Andelman) believed were in the league currently.^[1] ESPN broadcaster Gary Thorne went as far as to say that the league was "quickly becoming the nation's most expensive gang, if not the most dangerous." in a column he wrote for the Bangor Daily News^[2]. Even more bold is this comment from a column in the Arizona Republic.

Maybe if you're a stone-cold playa with 50 Cent in the headphones and street cred in the back pocket, you're still feeling it, dawg. But purists don't recognize the league.

San Francisco Chronicle writer David Steele, who cited the preceding quote in an April 2004 article^[3], noted that the criticism:

...carries an undercurrent of bias that runs along racial, cultural and generational lines. ... Inevitably, a criticism of, say, a 75-66 game devolves into a commentary on tattoos, cornrows, marijuana use, stretch limos, rap music and unwed fatherhood. Even when the quality of play itself rema ins the topic, buzzwords that sound painfully familiar crop up: undisciplined, poor work ethic, bad fundamentals, unintelligent play, lack of character, out of control.

Some have argued that the criticism of the NBA is hypocritical, considering the relative lack of criticism of Major League Baseball or National Football League players. Quoted from Sports Illustrated's Kelly Dwyer and Jack McCallum respectively:

Fans/media/12-year old girls routinely go out of their way to denigrate these players over misdeeds both perceived and real, but these guys can’t hold a candle to the faux-redneck (prep boys trying to pass themselves off as salt of the earth types) baseball shtick, or the lovely world of professional football.[4]

The unassailable fact remains that the NBA is a predominantly African-American league (73%) with a more openly hip-hop culture. While blacks make up about 65% of NFL rosters, football has never been seen as an “urban” sport. Moreover, because there are so many NFL players, and their sport is so team-focused and they’re covered in padding, they maintain some anonymity. It’s easier to embrace felons — of all colors — hidden under helmets than tatted-up black men in plain view. ... Some NBA players, such as Indiana’s Jermaine O’Neal, have been outspoken in their view that race is the major reason for the league’s negative image.[5]

While some columnists believe that the criticism of the league is based largely in racial and generational stereotypes and biases, others believe that the NBA put itself in such a position by not distancing itself from the darker aspects of hip-hop culture. Quoted from three prominent African American sportswriters.

	[the NBA] thought they were getting Will Smith and LL Cool J. But now they've discovered the dark side of hip-hop has also infiltrated their game, with its 'bling-bling' ostentation, its unrepentant I-gotta-get-paid ruthlessness, its unregulated culture of posses, and the constant underlying threat of violence.[6]
—Bryan Burwell

	You welcome in the music, you also get the misogyny and other themes of thug life that are admittedly the prerequisite values of the hip-hop culture. ... it is a life based on getting "respect" at any cost, including going into the stands and administering a beat-down if somebody "disrespects you."[7]
—Michael Wilbon

	Allen Iverson, Latrell Sprewell, Kobe Bryant, Dream Team failures, an embrace of all the negative aspects of the hip-hop culture and a horrid style of play have conspired to make the NBA easy to ignore.[8]
—Jason Whitlock

[edit] Pacers-Pistons brawl

After a massive altercation between Indiana Pacers players and Detroit Pistons fans, the NBA came under severe criticism from the national and mainstream media. Commentators, and those familiar with the event outside the sports media, were divided over the issues of who should primarily be blamed for the incident. Anger and blame was placed on the players, at NBA Union Chief Billy Hunter, who protested the length of suspensions, ^[9], the fans who sparked the melee and the referees who didn't put a stop to it ^[10].

Many in the media viewed the brawl as a statement on the disconnect between primarily white fans and black players. USA Today's Ian O'Connor:

[commentators are examining] the widening gulf between overwhelmingly black NBA teams and the white fans who follow them. It's healthy to ask tough questions about the uneasy state of race relations in sports and beyond; the more these issues are addressed in public forums, the better the chance of not having to examine them in the future... Sometimes we see race when we should simply see foolishness and hate. That's the product of living inside a sports culture where equal opportunity on the coaching, executive and ownership levels remains an elusive ideal.[11]

In the wake of the brawl, the NBA came under harsh scrutiny from some outlets. Noted conservative radio personality (and former ESPN NFL analyst) Rush Limbaugh said the NBA brawl was "hip-hop culture on parade" and also added the statement that "[NBA uniforms are] now in gang colors. They are in gang styles." Not only is there no way to analyze or prove this statement (especially considering that there are no major aesthetic differences between NBA uniforms and Major League Baseball or National Football League uniforms), but there are also indications that the NBA has actively tried to prevent having teams wear jerseys that could in any way be associated with gang culture.^[12] NBA commissioner David Stern, in a 2006 interview, made this comment about the brawl-related criticism:

When Ron Artest went into the stands, it was, 'All those players are …' ... And I know for a fact that they're not [all the same], so I wonder why they're so easily generalized. Maybe we're not doing as good of a job as we should be doing, or maybe there's something else at work.[13]

[edit] Dress Code

Perhaps mainly because of criticism, the NBA instituted a dress code in 2005, banning all clothing associated with the hip-hop culture. Players were instructed not to wear jewelery, throwback jerseys, headphones, indoor sunglasses and other accessories, and instead were told to wear "business casual" clothing. The dress code, characterized by some as "clearly and unapologetically directed toward suppressing hip-hop culture"^[14], was instantly controversial and a topic on many sports radio talk shows for several days. Many players objected, most notably Allen Iverson, who has faced the brunt of most hip-hop related NBA criticism:

They're targeting guys who dress like me, guys who dress hip-hop. Put a murderer in a suit and he's still a murderer. It sends a bad message to kids.

Michael Wilbon disagreed. In a Washington Post article, he wrote:

The NBA, as it turns out, knows now that people don't want to pay $200 a night to see jail culture. If they can't see Magic and Michael, they want to see people who make the attempt to look something like Magic and Michael. This is why the league went from one extreme to the other, from hip-hop to forging a relationship with Matthew Dowd, chief campaign strategist for Bush-Cheney 2004.[15]

Baggy shorts, also a symbol of hip-hop culture, were banned by the league as well, which instituted a rule on the length of players' shorts while playing. Tights, which players started to wear under their shorts in the 2005-06 season (and to this point not a symbol of hip-hop culture) were banned as well. No players were fined for dress code violations during the 2005-06 NBA season. The league has also attempted to severely distance itself from hip-hop since the Pacers-Pistons brawl; in the 2005 NBA All-Star Game, country music stars Big and Rich performed at halftime, a move that was ridiculed by TNT analyst Charles Barkley. In addition, as noted later in this article, ABC Sports (after relying on hip-hop music early on) has used artists such as Rob Thomas and Tom Petty for the NBA Finals in recent years.

[edit] Age limit

In 2005, the NBA was in the midst of creating a new collective bargaining agreement. One of the main topics of the deal was the league's desire to create a new age-limit for players to enter the NBA Draft.

The idea of an age-limit had been talked about for several years, after the entrance into the league of several high-school players. While several players who have entered the league out of high school have become successes (Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett and decades ago, Moses Malone), others have been relative failures (for example, Darius Miles or Robert Swift). Those in favor of an age-limit made the argument that players entering the league out of high school did not know the fundamentals of playing professional basketball and also were not mature enough to handle playing in the NBA.

	Well, they are physically mature enough to be part of the NBA, and they are great young players. But as you frame the issue, the question is whether a couple of years more of seasoning would increase their maturity, their skills, their collegiate programs and ultimately what it could do for sending messages to kids who are practicing their skills who should think about getting an education rather than coming right to [the] NBA.[16]
—NBA commissioner David Stern in a 2001 interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Proponents of the age-limit included Michael Wilbon, who argued that it was important for young players to get an education.^[17] Wilbon's belief, while held by many, has also been referred to as "simplistic" and "[reflective] not just [of] hypocrisy but a reimagination of reality as well"^[18]. Michael Mccann of the Mississippi College School of Law made this argument:

In stark contrast to popular myth, this Article finds that players drafted straight out of high school are not only likely to do well in the NBA, but are likely to become better players than any other age group entering the league. ... Beyond excellence in performance, high school players can also earn substantially more over the course of their NBA careers ... players who bypass college may earn as much as $100 million more over the course of their careers than had they earned a college diploma.[19]

Greg Anthony was one prominent NBA personality against the age-limit. Anthony's belief was that people should be able to make their own decisions about whether or not to enter the league, and that (quoting an article and not Anthony himself) "players from inner-city high schools aren't academically qualified for college because of the lower quality of education compared to their suburban counterparts"^[20] This led him into conflict with Wilbon and more notably with colleague Stephen A. Smith. On an April 2005 edition of NBA Shootaround, Anthony and Smith got into a heated debate about the age-limit.^[21] This came only days after Anthony was the primary interviewer in a discussion with Indiana Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal.

The interview was described by Sports Illustrated writer Mark Bechtel as "...Greg Anthony putting words in O'Neal's mouth then saying something along the lines of, "Is that what you meant?" And then O'Neal would say, "Exactly."^[22] It came on the heels of O'Neal discussing the age-limit in the context of race, and as he was in the midst of growing media attention and criticism.

As a black guy, you kind of think [race is] the reason why it's coming up. You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes and then go home? ... In the last two or three years, the Rookie of the Year has been a high school player. There were seven high school players in the All-Star game, so why we even talking [about] an age limit?[23]

As noted in a PopMatters.com article by David Leonard, O'Neal was roundly attacked for his opinion, with many accusing him of playing the race card and using his prior actions in the brawl as a reason to dismiss his claims.

With the agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement, the age-limit was put into place. Any person attempting to enter the NBA Draft must wait until he is at least nineteen years old, and until the graduation of his high school class.

[edit] Conspiracy theories

Many NBA fans have accused the league of conspiring to have large-market teams and popular players succeed in the postseason. Since 1980, only three NBA Finals have not involved the Boston Celtics, Chicago Bulls, Detroit Pistons, New York Knicks or Los Angeles Lakers (1995, 2003, although the New Jersey Nets who play in the greater New York City area were involved, and 2006). Additionally, only six NBA Finals since 1980 have not involved Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan or Shaquille O'Neal (1990, 1994, 1999, 2003, and 2005).

During the Chicago Bulls run of six NBA titles in eight years, fans accused the NBA and its referees of going easy on Michael Jordan. When the Los Angeles Lakers won three titles in a row in the early 2000s, fans believed that referees were helping them win as well. In 2006, the Dallas Mavericks and their fans felt slighted by a perceived referee and league bias towards Dwayne Wade and the Miami Heat in the Finals. Frequently, fans of both teams in a given series can feel that their team is being conspired against. In 1998, some Utah Jazz fans felt that the NBA desired the Los Angeles Lakers in the Finals so the league could have a second Bulls-Lakers matchup (the first came in 1991). At the same time, some Laker fans thought the league was conspiring against their team so that Utah would go back to the Finals in a rematch of the previous year's series.^[24]

Players and coaches have also bought into the idea of referee conspiracies. During a 2005 playoff series against the Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets coach Jeff Van Gundy was fined a record amount for a coach, $100,000, for asserting that he had a source within the league who informed him that the referees were being instructed to call more fouls on Yao Ming, due to protests by Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.^[25]

Many of these accusations are based on the premise that the NBA desires large markets and popular players for ratings purposes. Former CBS Sports president Neal Pilson disputes the idea that matchups have the biggest effect on ratings:

Ratings are a factor, but the 'conspiracy theory' misses the whole point. It has nothing to do with a great matchup, it has to do with the total number of games. NBC would trade a great matchup that's a sweep in a flash for a bad match up that goes seven games.[26]

[edit] Accusations from the Milwaukee Bucks

	It behooves everybody for the league to make more money, and the league knows that Philadelphia is going to make more money with L.A. than we would with L.A.[27]
—Milwaukee Bucks star Ray Allen, before Game 6 of the 2001 Eastern Conference Finals.

In 2001, the Milwaukee Bucks played the Philadelphia 76ers in the Eastern Conference Finals. The small-market Bucks (who had not even been featured on NBC that year prior to the second round of the playoffs) did not have any "big-time" stars, with the exception of Ray Allen (who, despite being popular, was not in the upper-echelon of NBA players in terms of endorsements). Their opponent that year, the Philadelphia 76ers had the polarizing and popular Allen Iverson, who had a multitude of shoe deals and mainstream recognition.

The series had several calls deemed dubious by the Bucks and their fans. Glenn Robinson, Sam Cassell and George Karl joined Allen in complaining about the officiating and hinting that the league was against them. Karl and Allen were both fined for their comments^[28]. In Game 6 of the tensely-fought series, Bucks forward Scott Williams threw an elbow at Iverson and was subsequently suspended for the deciding Game 7. After Milwaukee lost Game 7 on the road, Sports Illustrated columnist Marty Burns insinuated that the suspension may have been a form of payback by the league:

Williams' elbow to Iverson's chin warranted the flagrant 2 ruling, which kept Williams out of Game 7, but the Bucks' public airing of such potentially damaging charges to the NBA probably didn't help their case.[29]

[edit] Game six of the 2002 Western Conference Final

The 2002 Western Conference Final between the Sacramento Kings and Los Angeles Lakers was one of the most memorable in league history. The popular (though small-market) Kings led the two-time defending NBA champion Lakers three games to two heading into Game 6 at Staples Center, a game which would prove to be the most infamous of the series. The game, which the Lakers won by four, featured several disputable calls, including a late game foul on Mike Bibby--after he was bleeding from being elbowed in the nose by Kobe Bryant. Quoting former ESPN basketball analyst David Aldridge:

There is nothing I can say that will explain 27 free throws for the Lakers in the fourth quarter -- an amount staggering in its volume and impact on the game. It gave me pause. How can you explain it? How can you explain a game where Scot Pollard fouls out when he's two feet from Shaquille O'Neal, or that Doug Christie is called for a ridiculous touch foul just as Chris Webber spikes Kobe Bryant's drive to the hoop, or that Mike Bibby is called for a foul deep in the fourth quarter after Bryant pops him in the nose with an elbow?[30]

Former presidential candidate Ralph Nader weighed in on the series, voicing his displeasure with the officiating:

At a time when the public's confidence is shaken by headlines reporting the breach of trust by corporate executives, it is important... for there to be maintained a sense of impartiality and professionalism in commercial sports performances... That sense was severely shaken in the now notorious officiating during Game 6 of the Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings... When (Washington Post writer Michael) Wilbon writes that ‘The Kings and Lakers didn't decide this series …three referees did..’ when many thousands of fans, not just those in Sacramento, felt that merit lost to bad refereeing, you need to take notice beyond the usual and widespread grumbling by fans and columnists about referees ignoring the rule book and giving advantages to home teams and superstars.[31]

The Kings would go on to lose Game 7 of the series at home.

[edit] Accusations by Mark Cuban and the Dallas Mavericks

The 2006 NBA Finals came the year after a series that saw the second-lowest ratings in NBA Finals history. After the small-market San Antonio Spurs and Detroit Pistons slugged it out in a seven-game series with no discernible superstars, the Miami Heat and Dallas Mavericks battled in a series that featured Dallas' Dirk Nowitzki and mainstream star Dwayne Wade of Miami.

After Game 4, the Mavericks were already beginning to feel slighted. Serviceable bench player Jerry Stackhouse had been suspended for Game 5 thanks to a hard foul on Shaquille O'Neal. Some complained that Stackhouse was suspended thanks to a bias towards O'Neal and the Heat.^[32] However, several players had already been suspended during earlier rounds of the playoffs, thanks to the NBA cracking down on excessively physical play (Ron Artest, Raja Bell, Udonis Haslem, James Posey among others had already faced one-game suspensions).

With the series tied at two games apiece, Game 5 was pivotal. On the final possession in overtime, Dwayne Wade received an inbounds pass from mid court. Because Wade had already been in the front court prior to the inbounds of the ball, some argue that he should have been ruled ineligible to receive the pass in the backcourt and the Heat should have been called for a backcourt violation. After receiving the ball, Wade went on to drive to the basket, drawing a foul on Dirk Nowitzki. Replays would reveal that Nowitzki barely touched Wade, further angering Mavericks fans. In between Wade's free throws, Maverick Josh Howard looked to coach Avery Johnson to see if he wanted to call for time. Howard made a time-out gesture towards his coach; referee Joe Derosa saw and charged Dallas with their final time-out.

Without a time-out, the Mavericks were forced to inbound from full court after Wade hit his second free throw. Unable to get off a shot from inside of half court as time expired, the Mavericks lost the game and the series two nights later. After Game 5, Dallas owner Mark Cuban was livid; he was quoted by The Miami Herald as screaming at David Stern that "[his] league is rigged". Cuban denied that accusation^[33], and went on to write:

Any prudent, rational person can easily see it. The games are not rigged. Thats a complete insult to the players on the court and the incredible amount of effort they put into preparing for and playing the games. All 82 regular season and post season games. The NBA couldnt rig the games if it wanted to. And it doesnt want to. Its that simple

Despite his denial, Cuban was fined $250,000 by the league, not for his alleged comments, but for general "acts of misconduct" following the game.

[edit] 1985 NBA Draft

1985 was the first year of the NBA Draft Lottery. Prior to 85, the team with the worst record in the NBA would get the first pick in the draft (ala the National Football League). Had this been the case in 1985, the future of the NBA would have been very different.

The Oakland-based Golden State Warriors finished with the worst record in the NBA during the 1984-85 season, and the highest probability of landing the first pick in the draft. That year, Georgetown center Patrick Ewing was the favorite to be the number one pick in the draft. The large-market New York Knicks finished with the third worst record in the league that season.

When the Knicks won the draft lottery, eventually drafting Ewing (who would become a legend on the team, leading New York to the NBA Finals in 1994 and to a lesser extent in 1999), many believed that it was because the league staged the result.^[34]. The "Frozen Envelope Theory" is partly based on how the lottery is conducted: the teams are selected behind closed doors. Those buying into the theory allege that the envelope with the New York Knicks' logo on it was frozen so that it would be easier to draw when it came time to select the team that had the first pick in the draft. ^[35] While the NBA denies this ever happened, it is still occasionally referred to (for instance, the 2002 and 2003 drafts, featuring Yao Ming and LeBron James respectively, both occurred in years where the New York Knicks missed the playoffs. In both years, several observers believed that the Knicks would win the first pick.)

[edit] Michael Jordan gambling suspension

During the early 1990s, and especially in the 1992-93 NBA season, Chicago Bulls star Michael Jordan faced several gambling controversies. Stories of his trips to Atlantic City and of large bets on golf games surfaced during the playoffs, serving as a distraction to the then two-time defending champion Bulls. Jordan's gambling problems became a serious issue.

In March 1992, three of Jordan's checks were found in the briefcase of a man found murdered. ... Later that year he testified under oath that a 57,000 check... he originally had said was a business loan was in fact a check to cover gambling losses.[36]

The NBA started an investigation into Jordan, its biggest and most transcendent star at the time. Some allege that Jordan's eventual retirement from the game after the 1993 NBA Finals was in actuality a one-year suspension from the league.

According to the theory, Jordan was allowed to retire and spare himself and the league the embarrassment of having to publicly deal with the suspension and the likely ensuing scandal.^[37] This idea might have roots in the fact that this occurred only four years after Pete Rose was banned for life from Major League Baseball. Two days after Jordan's retirement, the NBA stated that it had ended its investigation and found no wrong doing.

Jordan returned to the league in March 1995. The NBA denies that Jordan was suspended.

[edit] Accusations of network bias

[edit] NBC

During its twelve-year run of covering the NBA, NBC Sports televised a substantial amount of games featuring the Chicago Bulls, New York Knicks and Los Angeles Lakers. In the prime time slot, from 5:30 p.m EST to 8:00 p.m EST, NBC aired games almost exclusively featuring either New York, Chicago or Los Angeles (incidentally, those three cities are the top three television markets in the United States). Several fans and media analysts viewed this as favoritism ^[38], and fans of teams like the Houston Rockets, who despite being a dominant team in the mid-1990s, were not featured on NBC at the level of New York or Chicago, felt as if they were being snubbed.^[39][40]

The perceived bias can be explained by the fact that, from 1990 to 2002 (NBC's run of covering the NBA), the Bulls, Lakers and Knicks played in six, four and two NBA Finals respectively. Until 1998, the Chicago Bulls were a dominant team, and during the early-to-mid 1990s, the New York Knicks were also in the NBA's elite. From 1997 to 2002, the Los Angeles Lakers also joined the ranks of the best in the NBA. The teams' dominance, combined with the fact that they played in major media markets, led to their being featured more often than other teams.

[edit] Other controversies

[edit] Latrell Sprewell chokes coach

In 1997, Latrell Sprewell was involved in arguably the most infamous incident in the NBA prior to the Pacers-Pistons brawl seven years later.

During a contentious practice, then-Golden State Warrior Sprewell was involved in an altercation with head coach P.J. Carlesimo which eventually ended up in him choking his coach and threatening to kill him.

The incident brought mainstream attention, but not quite the amount of criticism of the league as a whole as later controversies would. While some wondered if Sprewell's actions were indicative of a growing trend in the league, others tempered that belief with the idea that it was an isolated incident. Then active player Buck Williams said this on PBS:

Now it's a different way. It's a different player. And I think what's happening, you know, in our environment, in our society, is sort of--it just reflects what's happening in NBA. I mean, a lot of the players are young and sort of misunderstood. And it takes a very special coach, and it takes quite an understanding organization to try to deal with the new athlete.[41]

Sprewell would have his image redeemed somewhat after a run to the NBA Finals with the New York Knicks in 1999. However, after a contentious battle with the Minnesota Timberwolves over his salary in 2004, his image took another hit.

[edit] New game ball

After the 2005-06 season, David Stern has announced that along with a partnership with Spalding to use a microfiber ball for the 06-07 NBA season. The fabric of the new ball will replace the old leather balls, along with putting forth a new design. The league claims the new ball will provide more grip than the leather counterparts, especially when wet from player's sweat. The league also claims that the new ball will also bounce "better" and will perform more uniformly, unlike the old balls, whose performance varied more. Many players expressed dislike for the new ball, saying that it doesn't feel as good as the old ones they were used to. Even with the criticism from players, commisioner David Stern is sticking with the new ball. ^[42]

[edit] References