Maya’s post about basketball was interesting for its depth and analytical rigor. This one is about as banal as the stuff on ESPN I stopped watching twenty years ago.
I would like to see Maya do a weekly sports article/daily thread where we could talk about what's going on in that regard. There's not a lot going on right now, but this year we will have the Women's World Cup soon, with NFL training camps just around the corner.
Yeah. This is a pretty weak one. I'm kind of surprised Matt even ran with it. It doesn't seem to fit within SB for any obvious reasons unless Matt knows either personally.
Still curious for the non-sports stuff! Like I said below though, I do think a Sunday Sports open thread guided by you would be a lot fun later on, I'll emphasize that suggestion to Matt if he sees it.
The NBA has a 'Basketball Court' replete with Judges for the Slam Dunk Contest that I think is universally recognized as being terrible in its goal of assessing the quality of the dunks that it reviews.
I will never forgive the judges giving Blake Griffin the victory for his lame ass dunk over the hood of a sponsored Kia versus the incredible double basket dunk of Javale McGee. There is systemic rot in the basketball judicial system.
That tragedy of justice was the first time I realized the slam dunk contest was completely captured by corporate interests... genuinely a transformative moment in my political awakening.
True, but perhaps formalizing that Court would make things more fun -- "Chief Justice Charles Barkley" is just about the silliest-ever phrase in the English language.
I disagree with the proposal. Governments need a court system. The NBA does not. The issues they describe with the handing down of punishment are largely due to Adam Silver's (an attorney, by the way) leadership style. Adding more attorneys to the mix -- which is what would happen with the proposed court system -- is an idea only two attorneys could think is a good idea.
In addition, the authors write: "Corporations are led by chief executives like NBA Commissioner Adam Silver who are hired — and can be fired — based on their capacity to generate short-term revenues for the company rather than to generate longer-term consistency."
"In addition, the authors write: "Corporations are led by chief executives like NBA Commissioner Adam Silver who are hired — and can be fired — based on their capacity to generate short-term revenues for the company rather than to generate longer-term consistency"
The NBA is on its second commissioner in 40 years, LOL.
The especially wrong part is that investors (or their elected board of directors) hire a CEO based on their ability to "generate short-term revenues". That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
I recognize these professors are much smarter than I am, but that passage reads like an author just discovered PE takeovers and over-applied the model to contexts it doesn't fit.
What's weird to me, at least, is that I see no evidence that the good professors are aware of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that governs relationships between players and their employer, wherein controversies between the two are literally adjudicated by a third party wielding judicial-style authority, a process known as "arbitration" whose absence from this essay is conspicuously, bizarrely lacking.
Yeah this is an extremely bizarre omission. Collective bargaining creates a binding third party mechanism. I’d think lawyers should be aware of this, but such is life
I pulled up the article. The CBA gets a footnote. A FOOTNOTE. There is a whole body of private arbitral law surrounding the relationship between unionized employees and employers and this stupid article relegates it to a FOOTNOTE and figures that the decisions made by this Court will precede the labor arbitration because *handwaves*
Seriously, it reads that they had their great punny idea, wrote a whole article about it, then remembered the CBA at the last minute and slapped in a comment. Embarrassing for my profession.
In federal labor law this “Court” would likely be preempted as that is the legally established body to adjudicate disputes. The NLRA should be controlling here, not some fictional, duplicative third party entity. Such an odd thing to hand wave away, especially for lawyers.
I don’t find this convincing as why we should bring actual courts into the mix. I find it pretty laughable to think sending these decisions to a supreme basketball court will necessarily legitimate the decisions in the mind of fans or even speed decisions up… the actual process of things going through courts creates a ton of controversy, political, legal and otherwise, is often grindingly slow, and is not always very transparent. Will a big Memphis fan ever be convinced of anything other than a 0-game suspension for Ja?
I look forward to a highly politicized Basketball Court in 10 years where we read lengthy pieces on what a die hard Lakers partisan becoming the new median vote will mean for changes to the rulings about fouling.
After spending most of the piece arguing for a much more legalistic process, we get to the brawls where the NBA was extremely by the book and suddenly the argument shifted to essentially we want judges that'll ignore the plain text of the rule when we don't agree with the outcome and I had to double-check that Mark Joseph Stern or Josh Blackman weren't the authors.
The NBA just kind of enforces their rules to maximize viewership. The have a competition committee to change in-game rules.
The unequal enforcement is part of the product. Sending Myers Leonard to the shadow realm works because people do not care about Myers Leonard. Doing something similar for Kyrie and JB doesn't because they are more popular(and talented).
The NBA barely disciplines players that try to hurt other players.
Is the whole argument that Silver (or other commissioners) are too short-term focused? What would be the mandate of this court?
The problem is viewers getting angry at the NBA for perceived unfairness to players. Moving to an independent court shifts that anger away from the NBA itself and makes it look more fair.
Most NBA reddit people seem happy with the suspension or think it should be longer.
The problem the NBA has is that they don't want to be seen as okay with guns but also people like seeing Ja dunk basketballs.
The issue of fairness for off-court stuff doesn't seem to be the pressing issue. (See Leonard and Kyrie). The issue is that Ja is a star player and having him not play is bad for the NBA.
Wait, so if an NBA player was safely and legally using a firearm at a range or was filmed explaining firearm safety they would be punished?
Or is the issue the way he was using the firearm? I watched that video 3 times and couldn't even see the firearm but is that the problem?
I'm kinda surprised the racial angle hasn't been raised, e.g., would a white guy playing with a gun during a country song have gotten a similar punishment. Not saying I agree or disagree but it seems like where this kind of discussion would go.
So I think it's worth noting here that the initial offense by Morant involved him flashing the gun in a crowded nightclub while drinking, which is neither safe nor legal where it occured. Colorado police didn't charge him with wielding a firearm while intoxicated because the video alone wasn't sufficient evidence, but since the NBA doesn't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt I think the original 8 game suspension was justifiable.
So in the context of "you have just been suspended for being dangerously irresponsible with guns and then made a big show of apologizing," making IG posts with guns feels kind of like a "parole violation" of sorts.
Keldon Johnson of the Spurs is a known hunter, and ESPN ran a feature about it in their Black-interest vertical (I know how awkward and weird that came out, without knowing your familiarity with ESPN I honestly have no other way of describing it) a year or two ago, including magazine-quality glamor shots of him with bows and guns.
Oh there have been lots of people out there on the internet that have been pointing out the inconsistency of Morant getting slammed for this, while GOP members of Congress are doing things like posing for pictures while holding AR-15s.
I don't feel bad for Ja. As Chuck and Kenny pointed out, you can act a fool if you want, but don't expect to get paid 200 million dollars if you do. If you want the money, be responsible.
Shaq was - "don't hit the live button," which is good advice, but if you act the fool, someone else is going to hit the live/record button and you still end up there.
Maybe the white guy would have been treated worse because of less concern about this effect. Or maybe better because of less thug/gang associations. Who knows!
But it's the internet, I expect this sort of thing to elicit accusations of racism (likely from lefty whites) the way I expect any discussion of genetic selection of IVF embryos to elicit Hitler and forced sterilization comparisons.
Regarding your edit, I feel for you on striving for consistency. Either both should be capitalized (my preference) or neither, but trying to change years of writing habits has not been easy.
I was able to find Stern's statement where it seems clear that it was firearms related.
I guess maybe since that was "indefinite" they didn't count it.
“The possession of firearms by an NBA player in an NBA arena is a matter of the utmost concern to us. I initially thought it prudent to refrain from taking immediate action because of the pendency of a criminal investigation involving the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department, and the consideration of this matter by a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia. For the same reason, I directed the Wizards to refrain from taking any action.
Wizards personnel continue to be interviewed by law enforcement authorities, some are scheduled for appearance before the grand jury and the investigation is proceeding with the intensity that one would expect for such a serious incident.
Although it is clear that the actions of Mr. Arenas will ultimately result in a substantial suspension, and perhaps worse, his ongoing conduct has led me to conclude that he is not currently fit to take the court in an NBA game. Accordingly, I am suspending Mr. Arenas indefinitely, without pay, effective immediately pending the completion of the investigation by the NBA."
Insane take. I can't believe you've induced me to leave a comment. Well done.
- The purpose of the Meta court isn't to provide consistency, it's to get people to stop yelling at Mark Zuckerberg.
- "Someone to yell at" is already a primary function of sports league commissioners.
- There's no reason to think that consistency is a positive value in entertainment. Is it a problem that the coyote slams into the tunnel that's been painted on the wall while the roadrunner passes through? No. Similarly, league fans want norm-setting punishments handed to benchwarmers, not MVPs on the eve of the finals.
- Most importantly/distastefully: the point of league sanctions is to protect the business. In the case of Morant, this is tangled up in the problem of policing the behavior of young men who have come into a lot of money; and managing the attitudes of a fan base with significant blocs that will withhold dollars if allowed to incubate racist stereotypes. Ask the NFL. This is why you encourage players to don formalwear pre-game and why you come down like a ton of bricks on gun offenses. The process is inextricably mediated by sports and celebrity journalism--which is unpredictable. A supple approach is required. Players have lawyers and a union, but mostly they have big compensation tied to contracts with morality clauses. This is the deal, it's how the money gets made, and it would be nuts to create an inflexible bureaucracy solely for the sake of principle.
"No NBA player has ever been suspended more than 10 games for a firearms violation, and Morant was suspended 25 games." This statement isn't correct. Gilbert Arenas was suspended for most of the 2009-2010 season after the incident where he brandished a gun in a locker room.
"...Figuring out whether Silver’s punishment was right depends on how the NBA Constitution is interpreted....Governments have a tool for resolving complicated questions like these about how to best interpret their foundational rules: courts."
But distinguish between:
1) courts have a role in interpreting the constitution, and
2) courts have the sole and unquestioned authority to interpret the constitution.
The second represents the view that no other branch may challenge the court's interpretation of the constitution; the first allows that the executive and the legislature are also co-equal interpreters of the constitution. The second was popular in the last century, and especially popular when the US Supreme Court acted as a reputable and relatively non-partisan upholder of constitutional norms. But it has never been uncontroversial, and as the current court turns into a group of partisan hacks with a slightly more sordid reputation than Tucker Carlson, it ought to become controversial once again.
The question is not settled by the famous dictum that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That is compatible with it also being the province and duty of the executive to say what the law is. And it is manifestly the province and duty of the legislature to say what the law is.
Resist the judicial claim to sole authority in constitutional interpretation. If you want a body to interpret the NBA's "constitution", then construct one. But do not call it a court.
Yeah, I got to the end and realized this was written by two law professors. The current Supreme Court's behavior doesn't exactly strengthen the case for this idea, whatever it's purporting to solve.
Generally agree with this, except for the statement that "especially popular when the US Supreme Court acted as a reputable and relatively non-partisan upholder of constitutional norms."
When the right was getting slammed last century, they didn't consider the SCOTUS to be what you described and now that the left is getting slammed they don't consider it that way.
Never underestimate the capacity of law professors to generate new make-work programs for lawyers.
Shakespeare had a response to this pre-registered four centuries ago.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
it is a bad thing
Maya’s post about basketball was interesting for its depth and analytical rigor. This one is about as banal as the stuff on ESPN I stopped watching twenty years ago.
I would like to see Maya do a weekly sports article/daily thread where we could talk about what's going on in that regard. There's not a lot going on right now, but this year we will have the Women's World Cup soon, with NFL training camps just around the corner.
Yeah. This is a pretty weak one. I'm kind of surprised Matt even ran with it. It doesn't seem to fit within SB for any obvious reasons unless Matt knows either personally.
Harvard>Yale strikes again
When I saw the headline I got excited thinking "Yay! Another Maya post." But alas . . .
You'll get another on Monday don't worry :) not sports unfortunately.
Still curious for the non-sports stuff! Like I said below though, I do think a Sunday Sports open thread guided by you would be a lot fun later on, I'll emphasize that suggestion to Matt if he sees it.
An undergrad is already writing bette articles than professors. The kids aren’t just ok, they are awesome. I look forward to appreciating your work
The NBA has a 'Basketball Court' replete with Judges for the Slam Dunk Contest that I think is universally recognized as being terrible in its goal of assessing the quality of the dunks that it reviews.
I will never forgive the judges giving Blake Griffin the victory for his lame ass dunk over the hood of a sponsored Kia versus the incredible double basket dunk of Javale McGee. There is systemic rot in the basketball judicial system.
That tragedy of justice was the first time I realized the slam dunk contest was completely captured by corporate interests... genuinely a transformative moment in my political awakening.
True, but perhaps formalizing that Court would make things more fun -- "Chief Justice Charles Barkley" is just about the silliest-ever phrase in the English language.
I disagree with the proposal. Governments need a court system. The NBA does not. The issues they describe with the handing down of punishment are largely due to Adam Silver's (an attorney, by the way) leadership style. Adding more attorneys to the mix -- which is what would happen with the proposed court system -- is an idea only two attorneys could think is a good idea.
In addition, the authors write: "Corporations are led by chief executives like NBA Commissioner Adam Silver who are hired — and can be fired — based on their capacity to generate short-term revenues for the company rather than to generate longer-term consistency."
I'm stunned at how wrong that statement is.
"In addition, the authors write: "Corporations are led by chief executives like NBA Commissioner Adam Silver who are hired — and can be fired — based on their capacity to generate short-term revenues for the company rather than to generate longer-term consistency"
The NBA is on its second commissioner in 40 years, LOL.
I disagree with the proposal as well, but I thought it was interesting to read the advocates' argument. I don't think it's shallow or meritless.
The especially wrong part is that investors (or their elected board of directors) hire a CEO based on their ability to "generate short-term revenues". That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
It never ceases to amaze me how academics and journalists will rigorously fact-check articles except for value statements about business.
Source: Feels
I recognize these professors are much smarter than I am, but that passage reads like an author just discovered PE takeovers and over-applied the model to contexts it doesn't fit.
What's weird to me, at least, is that I see no evidence that the good professors are aware of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that governs relationships between players and their employer, wherein controversies between the two are literally adjudicated by a third party wielding judicial-style authority, a process known as "arbitration" whose absence from this essay is conspicuously, bizarrely lacking.
Yeah this is an extremely bizarre omission. Collective bargaining creates a binding third party mechanism. I’d think lawyers should be aware of this, but such is life
I pulled up the article. The CBA gets a footnote. A FOOTNOTE. There is a whole body of private arbitral law surrounding the relationship between unionized employees and employers and this stupid article relegates it to a FOOTNOTE and figures that the decisions made by this Court will precede the labor arbitration because *handwaves*
Seriously, it reads that they had their great punny idea, wrote a whole article about it, then remembered the CBA at the last minute and slapped in a comment. Embarrassing for my profession.
In federal labor law this “Court” would likely be preempted as that is the legally established body to adjudicate disputes. The NLRA should be controlling here, not some fictional, duplicative third party entity. Such an odd thing to hand wave away, especially for lawyers.
CBAs are effectively the equivalent of Constitutions in pro sports, the most powerful and overarching documents out there.
I don’t find this convincing as why we should bring actual courts into the mix. I find it pretty laughable to think sending these decisions to a supreme basketball court will necessarily legitimate the decisions in the mind of fans or even speed decisions up… the actual process of things going through courts creates a ton of controversy, political, legal and otherwise, is often grindingly slow, and is not always very transparent. Will a big Memphis fan ever be convinced of anything other than a 0-game suspension for Ja?
I look forward to a highly politicized Basketball Court in 10 years where we read lengthy pieces on what a die hard Lakers partisan becoming the new median vote will mean for changes to the rulings about fouling.
After spending most of the piece arguing for a much more legalistic process, we get to the brawls where the NBA was extremely by the book and suddenly the argument shifted to essentially we want judges that'll ignore the plain text of the rule when we don't agree with the outcome and I had to double-check that Mark Joseph Stern or Josh Blackman weren't the authors.
What is the problem this is trying to solve?
The NBA just kind of enforces their rules to maximize viewership. The have a competition committee to change in-game rules.
The unequal enforcement is part of the product. Sending Myers Leonard to the shadow realm works because people do not care about Myers Leonard. Doing something similar for Kyrie and JB doesn't because they are more popular(and talented).
The NBA barely disciplines players that try to hurt other players.
Is the whole argument that Silver (or other commissioners) are too short-term focused? What would be the mandate of this court?
And having a third party court rule against the commissioner or the owners would be so embarrassing. Why would they ever allow this to happen?
The problem is viewers getting angry at the NBA for perceived unfairness to players. Moving to an independent court shifts that anger away from the NBA itself and makes it look more fair.
Viewers like seeing the players play.
Most NBA reddit people seem happy with the suspension or think it should be longer.
The problem the NBA has is that they don't want to be seen as okay with guns but also people like seeing Ja dunk basketballs.
The issue of fairness for off-court stuff doesn't seem to be the pressing issue. (See Leonard and Kyrie). The issue is that Ja is a star player and having him not play is bad for the NBA.
Wait, so if an NBA player was safely and legally using a firearm at a range or was filmed explaining firearm safety they would be punished?
Or is the issue the way he was using the firearm? I watched that video 3 times and couldn't even see the firearm but is that the problem?
I'm kinda surprised the racial angle hasn't been raised, e.g., would a white guy playing with a gun during a country song have gotten a similar punishment. Not saying I agree or disagree but it seems like where this kind of discussion would go.
So I think it's worth noting here that the initial offense by Morant involved him flashing the gun in a crowded nightclub while drinking, which is neither safe nor legal where it occured. Colorado police didn't charge him with wielding a firearm while intoxicated because the video alone wasn't sufficient evidence, but since the NBA doesn't need to prove beyond reasonable doubt I think the original 8 game suspension was justifiable.
So in the context of "you have just been suspended for being dangerously irresponsible with guns and then made a big show of apologizing," making IG posts with guns feels kind of like a "parole violation" of sorts.
Keldon Johnson of the Spurs is a known hunter, and ESPN ran a feature about it in their Black-interest vertical (I know how awkward and weird that came out, without knowing your familiarity with ESPN I honestly have no other way of describing it) a year or two ago, including magazine-quality glamor shots of him with bows and guns.
Oh there have been lots of people out there on the internet that have been pointing out the inconsistency of Morant getting slammed for this, while GOP members of Congress are doing things like posing for pictures while holding AR-15s.
I am disappointed that Adam Silver has exhibited such inconsistency and favoritism by not suspending those members of Congress.
That's more like a James Dolan thing for banishing people from MSG who dare to cross him.
Best part of that video is Barkley at the end "stay off the internet fool."
Wise words for our nation.
I don't feel bad for Ja. As Chuck and Kenny pointed out, you can act a fool if you want, but don't expect to get paid 200 million dollars if you do. If you want the money, be responsible.
Shaq was - "don't hit the live button," which is good advice, but if you act the fool, someone else is going to hit the live/record button and you still end up there.
Maybe the white guy would have been treated worse because of less concern about this effect. Or maybe better because of less thug/gang associations. Who knows!
But it's the internet, I expect this sort of thing to elicit accusations of racism (likely from lefty whites) the way I expect any discussion of genetic selection of IVF embryos to elicit Hitler and forced sterilization comparisons.
The AP Stylebook post on their decision was interesting. I don't have a strong opinion here but do find the capital White a bit off.
https://blog.ap.org/announcements/why-we-will-lowercase-white
This part is ridiculous:
"But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs."
Why let those assholes monopolize and dictate anything?
Regarding your edit, I feel for you on striving for consistency. Either both should be capitalized (my preference) or neither, but trying to change years of writing habits has not been easy.
Yep, and to review those past discussions, I agree and I think the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes, which is usually the case.
“No NBA player has ever been suspended more than 10 games for a firearms violation“
Was Arenas’ 50 game’s technically for something else?
"Morant certainly violated that rule"
Have they been able to measure if the gun thing was detrimental to the NBA?
"...this was the second time that Morant filmed himself with a gun..."
Also not to be a pedant but his friend seemed to be filming.
Came to make your first point. I think the Arenas suspension would definitely be seen as firearm-related.
I was able to find Stern's statement where it seems clear that it was firearms related.
I guess maybe since that was "indefinite" they didn't count it.
“The possession of firearms by an NBA player in an NBA arena is a matter of the utmost concern to us. I initially thought it prudent to refrain from taking immediate action because of the pendency of a criminal investigation involving the office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Metropolitan Police Department, and the consideration of this matter by a grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia. For the same reason, I directed the Wizards to refrain from taking any action.
Wizards personnel continue to be interviewed by law enforcement authorities, some are scheduled for appearance before the grand jury and the investigation is proceeding with the intensity that one would expect for such a serious incident.
Although it is clear that the actions of Mr. Arenas will ultimately result in a substantial suspension, and perhaps worse, his ongoing conduct has led me to conclude that he is not currently fit to take the court in an NBA game. Accordingly, I am suspending Mr. Arenas indefinitely, without pay, effective immediately pending the completion of the investigation by the NBA."
Insane take. I can't believe you've induced me to leave a comment. Well done.
- The purpose of the Meta court isn't to provide consistency, it's to get people to stop yelling at Mark Zuckerberg.
- "Someone to yell at" is already a primary function of sports league commissioners.
- There's no reason to think that consistency is a positive value in entertainment. Is it a problem that the coyote slams into the tunnel that's been painted on the wall while the roadrunner passes through? No. Similarly, league fans want norm-setting punishments handed to benchwarmers, not MVPs on the eve of the finals.
- Most importantly/distastefully: the point of league sanctions is to protect the business. In the case of Morant, this is tangled up in the problem of policing the behavior of young men who have come into a lot of money; and managing the attitudes of a fan base with significant blocs that will withhold dollars if allowed to incubate racist stereotypes. Ask the NFL. This is why you encourage players to don formalwear pre-game and why you come down like a ton of bricks on gun offenses. The process is inextricably mediated by sports and celebrity journalism--which is unpredictable. A supple approach is required. Players have lawyers and a union, but mostly they have big compensation tied to contracts with morality clauses. This is the deal, it's how the money gets made, and it would be nuts to create an inflexible bureaucracy solely for the sake of principle.
So, the proposal is that Mark Cuban should have taken whoever was to decide on Luka's fine on a trip with his private plane before the decision?
"No NBA player has ever been suspended more than 10 games for a firearms violation, and Morant was suspended 25 games." This statement isn't correct. Gilbert Arenas was suspended for most of the 2009-2010 season after the incident where he brandished a gun in a locker room.
This has the feeling of a post by a couple of guys with a hammer about how many nails there are out there.
I will support a basketball court but only if it is presided over by Bugs bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky pig, Michael Jordan and Bill Murray.
"...Figuring out whether Silver’s punishment was right depends on how the NBA Constitution is interpreted....Governments have a tool for resolving complicated questions like these about how to best interpret their foundational rules: courts."
But distinguish between:
1) courts have a role in interpreting the constitution, and
2) courts have the sole and unquestioned authority to interpret the constitution.
The second represents the view that no other branch may challenge the court's interpretation of the constitution; the first allows that the executive and the legislature are also co-equal interpreters of the constitution. The second was popular in the last century, and especially popular when the US Supreme Court acted as a reputable and relatively non-partisan upholder of constitutional norms. But it has never been uncontroversial, and as the current court turns into a group of partisan hacks with a slightly more sordid reputation than Tucker Carlson, it ought to become controversial once again.
The question is not settled by the famous dictum that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." That is compatible with it also being the province and duty of the executive to say what the law is. And it is manifestly the province and duty of the legislature to say what the law is.
Resist the judicial claim to sole authority in constitutional interpretation. If you want a body to interpret the NBA's "constitution", then construct one. But do not call it a court.
Yeah, I got to the end and realized this was written by two law professors. The current Supreme Court's behavior doesn't exactly strengthen the case for this idea, whatever it's purporting to solve.
Generally agree with this, except for the statement that "especially popular when the US Supreme Court acted as a reputable and relatively non-partisan upholder of constitutional norms."
When the right was getting slammed last century, they didn't consider the SCOTUS to be what you described and now that the left is getting slammed they don't consider it that way.