Breaking News: Sterling's wife tells Barbara Walters she will fight any attempt

[D.o.s.]

Let us not forget that this is not about the league owners being offended by Sterling's remarks.  The only opinion that matters on these issues are the players, the vast majority of whom are African American, and, quite rightly, are deeply offended by Sterling's remarks. The players know they hold the power. They can boycott the games.   That is why Jay Z, until recently a part team owner, can sit next to the Nets bench in tonight's game, wearing a necklace that symbolizes racial hatred towards whites  (look up the 5 Percenters' philosophy), and have no accountability to the NBA owners or the media. Because that type of conduct, for the most part, does not seem to bother the players, Jay Z is cool, so nothing will ever be done about that. That is why Spike Lee can say things much worse than Donald Sterling (Spike says he "throws daggers" at inter-racial couples because he hates them) and still enjoy the best seats in MSG, because Spike is cool, the players are not upset with that, so the league won't do anything about it.  This whole thing is about the current owners keeping their status control intact.  Keep the workers happy so that they (the owners) can keep their league intact. 

I may be getting off topic here, I am not addressing the NBA Constitution, Mrs. Sterling's rights, or lack thereof.  Just trying to bring some perspective on what I feel are some pretty interesting paradoxes, to say the least.

I don't know about the bolded. I do know that Sterling's position as an owner paints the entire league in a way that Spike Lee's opinions don't. In a way that directly impacts one of the premiere franchises in the league. Spike's just a foulmouthed Knicks fan -- surely you're aware that there's more than one of those?

Well, sure, Spike Lee is not an owner.  But he has far more name recognition with the NBA brand than Don Sterling, at least before this telephone call incident, and is very linked to the product that the NBA is selling to the public.  In that regard, he is more than a foul mouthed Knick fan, he is part of the marketing of the NBA and its players.  The Nike commercials, the NBA is FANTastic promotions.  Furthermore, the NBA surely has the power to force him to give up his front court seats if they felt that his behavior was inappropriate, and hurt the League image.  A fair number of NBA players who are African American have non-African American wives.  A growing number of NBA players are biracial.  Spike Lee's words are quite offensive to them, and to me as well, for personal reasons.   Yet so long as the players do not call him on it, the League will do nothing.  I don't mean to diminish the distinction here between what an owner is accountable for, and what a fan is accountable for.  But that is not really why the situations are being treated differently by the League.  They are being treated differently because it is what the players are dictating.

Gotta disagree, I think it's exactly the difference between Sterling and Spike that is the key to this whole thing -- not only what Sterling said but, possibly more importantly, when he said it. The playoffs are the one time the NBA doesn't really have to deal with the shadow of the NFL when it comes to marketing.

[Neurotic Guy]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I mean if Milwaukee had a winning team with star players would the old owners really have gotten that much more than the $550 million they did? Are we supposed to believe that because the Bucks have sucked since the 80's and have no stars that $550 million was the bargain price?

I'm not buying that.

Why do realtors tell you to paint and 'stage' the house smartly before selling if not to increase the volume of potential buyers and increase the possibilty of a bidding war?   We wouldn't have the expression 'don't judge a book by its cover' if people didn't frequently do so.

2%? 5%? 10%? -- not sure how much difference it makes, but smiling Doc Rivers, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin on the cover is a book you'd rather read than one featuring Keith Bogans and a bunch of 2018 draft picks.

That stuff doesn't work with smart home buyers. Dumb people don't buy NBA franchises.

It's not as simple as smart v. dumb.  A motivated buyer will pay more.  A smart home buyer who walks into a home that reminds him of his childhood may be willing to pay a premium, just as the potential team owner who likes the status, power, exclusivity of NBA ownership may be swayed to outbid competition when good business acumen may suggest otherwise. The lure of an already contending team with visions of an immediate spotlight can increase motivation  as well as generate multiple suitors.

[footey]

Let us not forget that this is not about the league owners being offended by Sterling's remarks.  The only opinion that matters on these issues are the players, the vast majority of whom are African American, and, quite rightly, are deeply offended by Sterling's remarks. The players know they hold the power. They can boycott the games.   That is why Jay Z, until recently a part team owner, can sit next to the Nets bench in tonight's game, wearing a necklace that symbolizes racial hatred towards whites  (look up the 5 Percenters' philosophy), and have no accountability to the NBA owners or the media. Because that type of conduct, for the most part, does not seem to bother the players, Jay Z is cool, so nothing will ever be done about that. That is why Spike Lee can say things much worse than Donald Sterling (Spike says he "throws daggers" at inter-racial couples because he hates them) and still enjoy the best seats in MSG, because Spike is cool, the players are not upset with that, so the league won't do anything about it.  This whole thing is about the current owners keeping their status control intact.  Keep the workers happy so that they (the owners) can keep their league intact. 

I may be getting off topic here, I am not addressing the NBA Constitution, Mrs. Sterling's rights, or lack thereof.  Just trying to bring some perspective on what I feel are some pretty interesting paradoxes, to say the least.

I don't know about the bolded. I do know that Sterling's position as an owner paints the entire league in a way that Spike Lee's opinions don't. In a way that directly impacts one of the premiere franchises in the league. Spike's just a foulmouthed Knicks fan -- surely you're aware that there's more than one of those?

Well, sure, Spike Lee is not an owner.  But he has far more name recognition with the NBA brand than Don Sterling, at least before this telephone call incident, and is very linked to the product that the NBA is selling to the public.  In that regard, he is more than a foul mouthed Knick fan, he is part of the marketing of the NBA and its players.  The Nike commercials, the NBA is FANTastic promotions.  Furthermore, the NBA surely has the power to force him to give up his front court seats if they felt that his behavior was inappropriate, and hurt the League image.  A fair number of NBA players who are African American have non-African American wives.  A growing number of NBA players are biracial.  Spike Lee's words are quite offensive to them, and to me as well, for personal reasons.   Yet so long as the players do not call him on it, the League will do nothing.  I don't mean to diminish the distinction here between what an owner is accountable for, and what a fan is accountable for.  But that is not really why the situations are being treated differently by the League.  They are being treated differently because it is what the players are dictating.

Gotta disagree, I think it's exactly the difference between Sterling and Spike that is the key to this whole thing -- not only what Sterling said but, possibly more importantly, when he said it. The playoffs are the one time the NBA doesn't really have to deal with the shadow of the NFL when it comes to marketing.

What did Sterling say that was more offensive than what Spike Lee said?  Lee's words were considerably more offensive, and when you consider they were stated publicly, and not uttered in a private conversation, more intended to inflict harm.

[D.o.s.]

Spike Lee has said a lot of things -- I'm not going to defend anything he says, let alone his entire spoken oeuvre, especially since Spike's words seems like a tangentially focused part of this argument.

Now, if you have the owner of an NBA team being put forcibly on the record saying that he doesn't want his biracial mistress to bring black guys to the games for all the world to see -- especially the fans of the NBA who (go figure) tend not to feature many Sterling-esque viewpoints in our ranks, it brings loads of bad vibes on the league and onto the sport we all enjoy. Significantly more than Spike Lee saying, well, anything. Because Sterling's an owner of one of the most marketable teams in the NBA.

Think about how sick we are of the KIA ads. And the State Farm ads. The Clippers are everywhere. When's the last time you saw a Spike Lee joint?