As I mentioned in the comments of the last post, I don’t like how sports and capitalism mix sometimes.
You can’t look for sporting news anywhere right now without stumbling across a mention of the NBA switching back to the leather basketball. Shoot, it was even on the ESPN ticker all last night during Monday Night Football.
Actually, I almost have to take that back. There is one place where it’s practically a non-issue: NBA.com. Take a look-as of right now, there’s only a tiny link to “Leather Ball Reaction Page,” which I thought would be a list of glowing quotes from ecstatic players. Nope, it’s the press release of the announcement. There are no reactions whatsoever on the page, and the title is really misleading. (I almost didn't click on it since ESPN.com had a similar thing yesterday, but I'm glad I did.)
Yes, NBA.com is not the New York Times, but that’s lame. Obviously, the NBA’s ashamed of the switch back for a couple of reasons-for one, the players’ complaints are embarrassing to corporate partner Spalding and two, the whole switch makes commissioner David Stern look like a total jerk.
I like to hear whining even less than most people, and at first, I thought the players’ association’s lawsuit, in particular, was an overreaction. But the more I thought about it, the more I sympathized. The ball is pretty central to what basketball players do at work. Besides, why on Earth would you change the ball without talking to anyone? What’s the point, other than being a control freak?
That’s the problem for the NBA and for Stern-it puts him in a bad light and, with the revisionist history that is modern sports coverage, that colors all his previous actions. Come to think of it, that dress code thing was pretty lame last year too, wasn’t it? Yes, the players make millions and sure, they can afford some suits. But why not work out the details with the players before going public? I don’t get it.
Anyway, back to Econ 101. Like Jake Plummer jerseys, the “new” NBA ball (the one introduced this season) should soon be available at a discount price. So you go to NBA.com and click on the store link. Go to sporting goods. And you’ll see this.
(Go ahead, click it.)
That’s right, a huge picture of the “new” basketball! They’re still selling it and worse, they’re still promoting it. I can understand wanting to unload stock of the new ball, but that's just shady, and the NBA needs to change it. (I couldn't find a link to buy the real leather basketball, though it's available elsewhere.) Maybe that doesn’t bug you as much as it does me, but think of a Santa Claus out there looking to get a gift for a basketball-loving son or daughter. Congratulations, kid, you got the ball that makes Jason Kidd’s hands bleed.
The NBA screwed up, but now they’re doing the right thing. I just wish they weren’t being such twerps about it.
You can’t look for sporting news anywhere right now without stumbling across a mention of the NBA switching back to the leather basketball. Shoot, it was even on the ESPN ticker all last night during Monday Night Football.
Actually, I almost have to take that back. There is one place where it’s practically a non-issue: NBA.com. Take a look-as of right now, there’s only a tiny link to “Leather Ball Reaction Page,” which I thought would be a list of glowing quotes from ecstatic players. Nope, it’s the press release of the announcement. There are no reactions whatsoever on the page, and the title is really misleading. (I almost didn't click on it since ESPN.com had a similar thing yesterday, but I'm glad I did.)
Yes, NBA.com is not the New York Times, but that’s lame. Obviously, the NBA’s ashamed of the switch back for a couple of reasons-for one, the players’ complaints are embarrassing to corporate partner Spalding and two, the whole switch makes commissioner David Stern look like a total jerk.
I like to hear whining even less than most people, and at first, I thought the players’ association’s lawsuit, in particular, was an overreaction. But the more I thought about it, the more I sympathized. The ball is pretty central to what basketball players do at work. Besides, why on Earth would you change the ball without talking to anyone? What’s the point, other than being a control freak?
That’s the problem for the NBA and for Stern-it puts him in a bad light and, with the revisionist history that is modern sports coverage, that colors all his previous actions. Come to think of it, that dress code thing was pretty lame last year too, wasn’t it? Yes, the players make millions and sure, they can afford some suits. But why not work out the details with the players before going public? I don’t get it.
Anyway, back to Econ 101. Like Jake Plummer jerseys, the “new” NBA ball (the one introduced this season) should soon be available at a discount price. So you go to NBA.com and click on the store link. Go to sporting goods. And you’ll see this.
(Go ahead, click it.)
That’s right, a huge picture of the “new” basketball! They’re still selling it and worse, they’re still promoting it. I can understand wanting to unload stock of the new ball, but that's just shady, and the NBA needs to change it. (I couldn't find a link to buy the real leather basketball, though it's available elsewhere.) Maybe that doesn’t bug you as much as it does me, but think of a Santa Claus out there looking to get a gift for a basketball-loving son or daughter. Congratulations, kid, you got the ball that makes Jason Kidd’s hands bleed.
The NBA screwed up, but now they’re doing the right thing. I just wish they weren’t being such twerps about it.
Comments