Really? Then why not have injured players stay home all the time? Why do they have to show up to every game (or home game)? Why does Dwight have to be at every preseason game in his suit? Why did Yao have to drag his leg to the bench to watch us play? You don't think some fans come just to catch a glimpse of those guys, even if they're on the bench (now I don't think TD/Manu/Parker are wildly popular but that's besides the point). Then you don't understand the star power that some of these top guys have. But again, back to the point, would you be fine with coaches having their players sit at home if they're not playing? I think this is the thing that really pissed off Stern. Resting players isn't something new. Sending your players home b/c they won't be playing is.
There's no rule that injured players have to be at the games or travel with the team. Its up to the team / individual player whether or not they do so, as far as I know. No, I don't think any fan cares all that much about seeing Duncan/Manu/Parker sitting on the bench. Particularly when they get to watch players like LeBron and Wade up close 41 games a season. But even if the fans do care more about gazing at stars sitting on the bench then enjoying the actual game itself, so what? This whole attitude of stars being more important than the game runs totally counter to the Spurs philosophy, so why should they have to accommodate it? Whether a player sits with the team, to me, is only an issue as far as team chemistry goes. Young players should be encouraged to sit with the team. Teams that are mentally fragile and need their "leader" on the bench with them, maybe it helps there as well. This isn't an issue with the Spurs.
You still didn't answer my question. Do you think it's okay for a coach to send his players home if he doesn't intend on playing them?
Agree. Some people, it seems to me, are just knee-jerk reacting because of their "love" for Stern. Why are injured players REQUIRED to be present on their bench, even if they won't be playing? Players are required to be present in post-game interviews, and IIRC, some were fined for skipping it. Duncan and co. are not even injured, they are just tired and old. BTW, lest I be accused of being spurs hater. If the Rockets are not playing for the championship, I will root for the Spurs against Miami. Nevertheless, I don't like what Popobitch has done. In my opinion, it's a middle finger to Stern, unfortunately, it hit the customers instead. Greg, you're a great coach. Have some empathy for the fans who is funding your salary. NB: Yes, I said IF :grin:.
So it depends??? It's not up to you or me or anybody to say what teams can and cannot do this. But it's up to Stern to put a stop to this or else it could become a league-wide activity. Like I said, resting players isn't new. Stern has voiced his displeasure against resting players many many times before. But he never fined them. Why? Never once has players been sent home b/c they won't play, not b/c they cannot play. This is a huge precedent here. Sports is about team, and team is about sharing the joy of competition, whether you play or not. You're there for your team through thick and thin, unless you're physically unable to. That's why the last guy on the bench still gets the same championship ring as the best player on the team. Sending your players home b/c they won't be playing is not a good thing period. It goes against what sports stands for. this is completely disgusting what Pop did. If he wants to rest them, then there's the bench. Have them sit there and chill for 3 hours.
Of course it depends. If you read my earlier post, I said its only an issue so far as how it affects the team.They may want certain players to travel with the team, and for other players its not necessary. David Stern should stay the hell out of it. You say sports is about "team", and yet you're for giving Stern the power to decide what's best for the Spurs team. As if he knows better than Gregg Popovich. That's plainly ridiculous.
So if EVERY coach in the NBA deems it's fine within their team to send players home b/c they won't be playing, then that's completely fine too to you? Ridiculous. Stern is the commissioner of the NBA. There's an image the league has to portray. Imagine the image the league would be portraying if every other game players are sent home b/c the coach deems it's unnecessary for them to be there. And what was Pop's explanation for sending them home? Rest??? Like I said, there's the bench. What activity would be so difficult sitting on the bench?
It matters the game was on national TV. Fans whine like bleating vaginass when their teams are not on national TV. Then these same fans don't accept the extra scrutiny. Can't have it both ways. Stern should have also adjusted the TV schedules going forward to take the Spurs off. Let Popovich be out of the glare a bit. Popovich is one of the 5 best coaches of all-time but he doesn't handle the scrutiny very well.
Whether inactive players are required to travel with the team is totally up to the team. It is an internal matter. Most teams want them to be with the team because it normally helped team spirit. But if they don't think it helps, who are we or anybody to say that's wrong to let them go home? Sometimes teams want injured players to stay home to work out. Some want them to rest. It's not that different from some bosses letting some employees to stay home for a day or two after a particularly busy stretch.
So what image was Stern, and the league, trying to portray last year with the lockout when all players (and coaches) were sent home indefinitely? Please tell me you at least see some shred of hypocrisy here?
and what image was Stern trying portray when he himself went home after work last night?!?? unrelated issues are unrelated
Unrelated how? The crux of the argument here is the players, the superstars especially, being present at games (whether on the bench or court) for the fans' pleasure or team morale, whatever reason you want to spin off this. What service did he do in furthering this cause last year with the lockout? Thousands (...er maybe hundreds) of fans were cheated out of marquee games for a month or two and many teams took a hit to their chemistry given the significantly decreased time for practice/preparations for the season. If you won't call it hypocrisy, at least acknowledge it as inconsistent on Stern's part in enforcing this arbitrary rule with sanctions. Here's an excerpt from Hollinger's piece highlighting Stern's hypocrisy/inconsistency/incompetence/whatever you want to call it: "Moreover, Popovich isn't the only one. You want a bad national TV game as a result of sitting stars? How about last year's Miami-Boston game on April 24, in which six of the seven All-Stars from the two different teams sat out because of assorted maladies, both real and imagined, and the result was a 78-66 abomination that may be the single-worst game I have ever seen in person. (Did I mention I flew up to cover this putrescence?) I'm still waiting to hear about the sanctions facing those two teams." Related issues are...wait for it...related! See what I did there? I can spit out cliches too rather than present an intelligible argument.
Maybe I'm not as "intelligible" as you, like you said. Sorry for that. You super intelligent guys have to bear with us, simple stupid folks. but i don't see how labor dispute issues are related to this at all. But what are you even suggesting? that Stern should've forced the owners to accept players' terms and possibly bankrupt the league, in order to make the league look good and not upset the fans short term? Either that, or he shouldn't address any other issues that he thinks make the league look bad. If he addresses these issues, he's a hypocrite. That's basically your argument. You just picked something completely random and threw it there. i don't want to discuss the Popovich anymore. Just saw your lockout argument and thought it was the oddest argument in the thread for either side. But again, that may be because I'm not as intelligible as you.
So we're changing from sports being about team, to sports being about image. You know what? The NBA does have an image problem. The image many people have of the NBA is that its too much of an individual sport and that players lack fundamentals and discipline. The other image problem is that the league is too star-driven and they are willing to manipulate schedules and officiating too favor star-laden teams. Those are the image problems that the league should be addressing. The Spurs organization and how they run things is widely considered first class, precisely because they go against the grain of what many people find wrong with the NBA.
I love how you are defending the hell out of "Superteams" and how they do not damage the integrity of the game but when a coach decides to rest his players after 4 games in 5 nights all of a sudden its wrong. You are calling me delusional because I thought the game was competitive, but you believe Chris Bosh when he says they weren't trying at all? You expect me to believe that throughout the entire game, at no point, did they decide to start playing with more intensity despite the fact that the Spurs have often taken the lead? Also, just because Bosh is not against the Spurs' starter he chooses to slack off? Isn't that again the spirit of competition in the first place? You have no grounds to stand on this issue. There is absolutely no way in hell you could defend "superteams" and claim Pops compromised the integrity of the game. That's complete contradiction.
