Jason Whitlock (Merged)

[Hollywood]

Here is Jason Whitlock’s latest article
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8187914/In-NBA-playoffs%2C-less-ink-means-more-viewers

I don’t like Jason Whitlock, I don’t get where he is coming from and he makes me uncomfortable.

From the article:

Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees

Could you imagine Bob Ryan writing something like this?

What does everybody else think of the idea of the NBA trying to put a shirt and tie on?

Or as Whitlock puts it:

I'd make Iverson wear a turtleneck jersey with sleeves. (which he sort of already does)

[Donoghus]

I actually don't mind too much of Whitlock's stuff but that argument is a reach and safe to say, is not the reason for the boost in ratings and renewed interest.

[jgod213]

Figured a few of you, like myself, would enjoy a brief break from the typical "what the celtics did wrong/right" threads...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8187914/In-NBA-playoffs%2C-less-ink-means-more-viewers

It reads, in part:

Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees.

The only accurate way to describe Garnett, Pierce, Duncan, Allen, Manu, Parker and even Kobe is "clean cut." Yeah, there are a couple of tattoos in that group — Duncan has something on his back, Kobe still has his post-rape-allegation tat — but the Lakers, Spurs and Celtics have far less ink on average than your typical NBA franchise.

Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony have more tats on their hands than the entire Spurs roster.

I know many of you probably think the number of tattoos doesn't influence viewing habits. You're wrong. Like everything else televised, appearances matter. There's a reason you don't see nude scenes in movies with fat people. Trust me, fat people have sex. It's just no one wants to see it. Not even fat people.

No one wants to watch Delonte West or Larry Hughes play basketball. It's uncomfortable and disconcerting. You don't want your kids to see it. You don't want your kids to think they should decorate their neck, arms, hands, chest and legs in paint. You don't want to waste time explaining to your kids that some millionaire athletes have so little genuine self-confidence that they find it necessary to cover themselves in tattoos as a way to mask their insecurities.


You just want to watch basketball and feel like you're watching people you can relate to a little bit, people you somewhat respect.

Very strong words here from Jason Whitlock, "you just want to watch...people you somewhat respect."

What's the reaction to this article? Do you agree that, at least subconsiously, the amount of ink on a player influences your desire to watch him play?  Perhaps most of us (being avid fans) have become desensitized to this type of stuff, but would you say that tattoos play a part in whether or not the casual fan will tune into a game?

I do think Whitlock makes a good point when he brings family into the discussion.  Now most of us absolutely loved Delonte and his personality while he was here, but for you older folk with kids, did you ever worry about how his appearence might rub off on your kid? Did you ever have a conversation about it? It's an interesting question that i hadn't thought of....

[Roy Hobbs]

I actually don't mind too much of Whitlock's stuff but that argument is a reach and safe to say, is not the reason for the boost in ratings and renewed interest.

Ditto to this.  The argument is definitely a stretch; people are watching the playoffs because Boston and LA are on a collision course.  Those are the two marquis franchises in the NBA, and both have large, national fan bases.

I do think that tattoos turn off some NBA fans, but not enough to make any appreciable difference in ratings.

[LarBrd33]

Kinda dumb really.    Tattoos?  Really?  Uh....

The ratings thing is obvious.   Every team in the west won at least 50 games.  Highly competitive with a ton of great teams.  Shaq to Phx, Kidd to Dallas... the next Isiah in Chris Paul... the Jazz solid and exciting.   In the East they had Dwight Howard, LeBron, the reborn Celtics and the consistent Pistons.  In the early part of the decade it's been very tilted towards the west.  Whoever won the West was expected to dominate. 

Right now all 4 teams left are considered genuine contenders for the title.   Spurs are the defending champs, the Lakers seem unbeatable... and the Celtics and Pistons had the two best records in the NBA.

It also helps that the Lakers and Celtics are the two most important franchises in the NBA and they are both looking like they are on the verge of making the finals.  The biggest rivalry in the NBA reborn.  The Big 3's first playoffs together.  Pau and Kobe are the NBA's best offense and people are still curious on how this essentially "new" team will perform.

And in my opinion the most important thing is that since 1980 only 8 teams have won the NBA Championship.  4 of those teams are still battling for the title in these playoffs.    In 8 of the last 9 years the West has been represented by the Lakers or Spurs... that rivalry obviously will get huge ratings.  Pistons/Celtics are a rivalry reborn from the 80s that was renewed in 3 epic games in the regular season.

I mean... obviously a ton of reasons for improved ratings.   Tattoos?  Really???   

[CT34]

Figured a few of you, like myself, would enjoy a brief break from the typical "what the celtics did wrong/right" threads...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8187914/In-NBA-playoffs%2C-less-ink-means-more-viewers

It reads, in part:

Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees.

The only accurate way to describe Garnett, Pierce, Duncan, Allen, Manu, Parker and even Kobe is "clean cut." Yeah, there are a couple of tattoos in that group — Duncan has something on his back, Kobe still has his post-rape-allegation tat — but the Lakers, Spurs and Celtics have far less ink on average than your typical NBA franchise.

Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony have more tats on their hands than the entire Spurs roster.

I know many of you probably think the number of tattoos doesn't influence viewing habits. You're wrong. Like everything else televised, appearances matter. There's a reason you don't see nude scenes in movies with fat people. Trust me, fat people have sex. It's just no one wants to see it. Not even fat people.

No one wants to watch Delonte West or Larry Hughes play basketball. It's uncomfortable and disconcerting. You don't want your kids to see it. You don't want your kids to think they should decorate their neck, arms, hands, chest and legs in paint. You don't want to waste time explaining to your kids that some millionaire athletes have so little genuine self-confidence that they find it necessary to cover themselves in tattoos as a way to mask their insecurities.


You just want to watch basketball and feel like you're watching people you can relate to a little bit, people you somewhat respect.

Very strong words here from Jason Whitlock, "you just want to watch...people you somewhat respect."

What's the reaction to this article? Do you agree that, at least subconsiously, the amount of ink on a player influences your desire to watch him play?  Perhaps most of us (being avid fans) have become desensitized to this type of stuff, but would you say that tattoos play a part in whether or not the casual fan will tune into a game?

I do think Whitlock makes a good point when he brings family into the discussion.  Now most of us absolutely loved Delonte and his personality while he was here, but for you older folk with kids, did you ever worry about how his appearence might rub off on your kid? Did you ever have a conversation about it? It's an interesting question that i hadn't thought of....

First off I watch the game because I love the game.  I have not talk to anyone who said they don't watch NBA games because the players have too many tats. So I disagree with Whitlock.  I think more people are watching because it was one of the best NBA season in a long time.  The Boston Celtics are back on the map and we know they can have a big following win they win.

Oh and as a father I not going to shy away from letting my children watch the NBA because players have tats.  If my children was to come to me asking if they can get a tat like Kobe or Lebron.  I would say once you start making the type of money those guy make you can get a tat. But as long as I'm playing for everything you own your not getting a tat.  I think it will open a way for you and your children to talk.  Not just about getting a tat but about life.

[Redz]

This argument is right up there with the ones against loud announcers, dancers, pyrotechnics, etc...  The times have changed.  Lots of players wear tattoos now.  It's a style.

Did people turn off the tube for this:



or this:



It's the game on the court that will keep people watching or turn the channel.  If the matchups are compelling people will watch.

[Roy Hobbs]

Did people turn off the tube for this:



or this:

Kind of.  But they turned it back on for this:



and stayed for this:



-----------------------------------

Again, I think with some viewers, looks matter.  If you asked a typical white audience (and most of the viewers in America are white) to pick a team to root for based upon nothing other than looks, and then showed them a picture of the Spurs or this year's Utah Jazz, versus a picture of a team with AI, Delonte, Robert Swift, and Dennis Rodman, most audience members will select (consciously or subconsciously) the Spurs or Jazz.

I think the effect on actual viewership is probably negligible, though.  While many have a subconscious bias, they don't allow that bias to detract from them watching compelling basketball.

[Redz]

Fair point Roy.  I guess I enjoy the game enough that I'm willing to set aside people making making fashion statements, or personal expressions, or whatever its called, that are contrary to my personal taste.  That puts me in the minority apparently.

I was trying to find a player who defined the first steps towards the whole tattoo NBA culture.  I think guys like Larry Johnson definitely started carrying themselves differently, but the tats weren't there yet.  Who were the "tattoo pioneers" of the NBA?  Was it as late as Iverson?

[CT34]

Fair point Roy.  I guess I enjoy the game enough that I'm willing to set aside people making making fashion statements, or personal expressions, or whatever its called, that are contrary to my personal taste.  That puts me in the minority apparently.

I was trying to find a player who defined the first steps towards the whole tattoo NBA culture.  I think guys like Larry Johnson definitely started carrying themselves differently, but the tats weren't there yet.  Who were the "tattoo pioneers" of the NBA?  Was it as late as Iverson?

Dennis Rodman was the first person I can remember having many tats.

[CDawg834]

Now most of us absolutely loved Delonte and his personality while he was here, but for you older folk with kids, did you ever worry about how his appearence might rub off on your kid?

I don't have kids yet, but if I did, I would be even more concerned if they starting speaking in Delonte-isms.  Have you ever heard an interview with the man?  What a strange, strange dude...

[jaketwice]

Figured a few of you, like myself, would enjoy a brief break from the typical "what the celtics did wrong/right" threads...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/8187914/In-NBA-playoffs%2C-less-ink-means-more-viewers

It reads, in part:

Part of the reason more people are watching these playoffs is because the average fan isn't constantly repulsed by the appearance of most of the players on the court. Most of the key players left in the playoffs don't look like recent prison parolees.

The only accurate way to describe Garnett, Pierce, Duncan, Allen, Manu, Parker and even Kobe is "clean cut." Yeah, there are a couple of tattoos in that group — Duncan has something on his back, Kobe still has his post-rape-allegation tat — but the Lakers, Spurs and Celtics have far less ink on average than your typical NBA franchise.

Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony have more tats on their hands than the entire Spurs roster.

I know many of you probably think the number of tattoos doesn't influence viewing habits. You're wrong. Like everything else televised, appearances matter. There's a reason you don't see nude scenes in movies with fat people. Trust me, fat people have sex. It's just no one wants to see it. Not even fat people.

No one wants to watch Delonte West or Larry Hughes play basketball. It's uncomfortable and disconcerting. You don't want your kids to see it. You don't want your kids to think they should decorate their neck, arms, hands, chest and legs in paint. You don't want to waste time explaining to your kids that some millionaire athletes have so little genuine self-confidence that they find it necessary to cover themselves in tattoos as a way to mask their insecurities.


You just want to watch basketball and feel like you're watching people you can relate to a little bit, people you somewhat respect.

Very strong words here from Jason Whitlock, "you just want to watch...people you somewhat respect."

What's the reaction to this article? Do you agree that, at least subconsiously, the amount of ink on a player influences your desire to watch him play?  Perhaps most of us (being avid fans) have become desensitized to this type of stuff, but would you say that tattoos play a part in whether or not the casual fan will tune into a game?

I do think Whitlock makes a good point when he brings family into the discussion.  Now most of us absolutely loved Delonte and his personality while he was here, but for you older folk with kids, did you ever worry about how his appearence might rub off on your kid? Did you ever have a conversation about it? It's an interesting question that i hadn't thought of....

First off I watch the game because I love the game.  I have not talk to anyone who said they don't watch NBA games because the players have too many tats. So I disagree with Whitlock.  I think more people are watching because it was one of the best NBA season in a long time.  The Boston Celtics are back on the map and we know they can have a big following win they win.

The reason no one wants to watch Larry Hughes is because he sucks. Personally, I like watching Delonte West.  And PS: Jason? LeBron James, who based on marketing dollars people LOVE to watch - has plenty of tattoos.

I am really starting to get tired of having my intelligence, and the intelligence of other Americans so insulted. I suppose it's merely a coincidence that this is ALSO the best basketball season in 20 years.  Totally about how the players look though. Sure. Nothing to do with winning.  Fast paced exciting ball? Not a factor! It's all about long hair or the lack thereof!  Why do you think Walter Hermann has't suited up for the Pistons this series? (...long hair?)...

Is it that the writers have nothing to say so? Or do they really think we're that stupid?

We just aren't an HL Mencken culture anymore.

[celticsmaniac]

Wow. I lost a lot of respect for Jason Whitlock just by reading that article. You've got to be kidding me. A white writer wouldn't get away with that kind of dated, ethnocentric stereotyping and neither should Whitlock. I'm not saying he should be fired, but I pray that most people won't listen to these blatant, ignorant claims such as:

"you can't respect people with tattoos"

"the only reason people get tattoos is to mask their insecurities"

"it's uncomfortable and disconcerting just to look at someone with tattoos"

"having tattoos makes you a brute and a bad role model"

"athlets are no different from models - they get paid to look nice"

what kind of BULL is that?? That's a terrible message to send. In his conclusion he also implies that the main reason players shouldnt get tattoos is that more people will watch the league which will lead to more money for them. Are you KIDDING ME??? So, not only are these guys not rich enough, but they should change the way they look just to please people because money is the only thing that matters??

The sad thing is that a lot of people really do agree with Whitlock on this subject, but most of those people are stubborn, close minded dinosaurs who will mostly be dead in 15 years or so and the basketball - and probably the world - will be better off without them. I'm not saying I disrespect anyone who doesn't like tattoos. But I have no respect for anyone who will disrespect someone strictly because they have tattoos.

Tats are just art that you put on your body, people. You may have grown up in a world where they were just for prisoners and lowlifes but it's a different world now. There are doctors, teachers and politicians with tattoos and that will only increase as people in my generation get older. You might as well get used to it.

<edited for profanity - please stay away from the naughty words - Redz>

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

I have no respect for anyone who will disrespect someone strictly because they have tattoos.

Tats are just art that you put on your body, people. You may have grown up in a world where they were just for prisoners and lowlifes but it's a different world now. There are doctors, teachers and politicians with tattoos and that will only increase as people in my generation get older. You might as well get used to it.

Very well said celticsmaniac....I agree 100%......TP for you!

[Sweet17]

This is a bad argument. I think you have to find someway to quantify the number of tattoos on the playoff teams and then you would have to screen out the market size of the teams in the playoffs to really make it almost credible. Whitlock the typical lazy journalist hasn't done anything like that.

They just throw ideas out there and see if they stick they don't even attempt to use any kind of an analysis. Maybe more people are watching the playoffs because they love JVG. Who knows..really but I would bet on the idea that the big market teams are back in the mix and they play an exciting brand of basketball.

It's funny because after all the years of listening to Tommy rave about fast breaks this is the only year we seem to have a semi-effective one - with our bunch of old guys. <g>

Pete