Regardless of how these coaches feel about wearing microphones, and regardless of the pros and cons, any of the coaches who refuse to mic-up are hypocrits in my opinion. They want their players to follow a team concept while they refuse to do the same? Scottie Pippen refuses to take the court on the final play of the game, and he's a selfish baby. Westphal refuses to wear a microphone and he's a martyr for the cause? This isn't a human rights issue or a war we shouldn't be involved in, it's basketball for Christ's sake. It's a job. The dissident coaches should practice what they preach and get on the same page with the rest of the team. I salute Rudy who, whether he wants to or not, has worn his mic - even to the ridicule of the announcers. Ka-pi-ya!
I have to agree they should where the mikes. The NBA is doing this to try to improve business and -- however misguided it may or may not be -- refusing the dictates from the boss is stupid. Of course, it is a bit complicated because it is a franchise system and the profitability comes down to the owners and not the central office. But it still shouldn't even be an issue for a coach to decide. The owner of each team should be the one saying whether the coach should do it or no.
Is the NBA also trying to restrict what the coaches' can and can't say while the mic is on, or can they still say whatever they want? I'm wondering if they're telling them to watch their language, or not to criticize refs, etc. while the mic is on.
"Look,a coaches' job is to win the game on the court. Are we agreed on that?" No, Popeye, we're not. The NBA is an entertainment company. Looking at the micro-level, it is the coaches' job to win games. But they also should be expected to help the company do what it is trying to do. And it is trying to entertain. As a business, the NBA needs its employees to try to help the company achieve its ends and make money. That is the purpose of employment.
If you applaud the coach who tells the NBA to piss-off, do you then applaud the player who tells the coach to piss-off? Afterall, it's one thing to draw X's and O's, it's another to actually go out there and play against today's NBA superstars. We can debate whether or not the coaches should be required to wear the mic, but that's not the point I brought up. I think the coaches who refuse directives from higher up set a poor precedent for their players. I shouldn't be suprised with Phil Jackson's position on the matter. He did mold Pippen into the kind of player he is today.
Well if the NBA can mandate mics perhaps they should also setup: ClipboardCams TrouserCams HeadbandCams NikeLogoSwooshCams CornRowCams All in an effort to redefine the game, uh, boost ratings. Somehow methinks ultimately it will hurt the game. [This message has been edited by BlastOff (edited March 14, 2000).]
The NBA is an entertainment industry, but BASKETBALL is a sport. In my mind, once the game begins, the focus should be on basketball, and marketing should be externalized. In this setting, winning becomes the most important part; the player who tells the coach to piss-off undermines this goal, refusing to wear a Mic probably FURTHERS this goal. I don't think the NBA should corrupt the integrity of the game any further than it already has... and forcing mics on coaches obviously does this, for the reasons popeye suggested.
Ive heard rumors that the coaches mikes aren't boosting ratings the way NBC would like, and now NBC is asking to mike players during a game. Too boost ratings
Then maybe we should mike up chris rock or Master P and have them play so we can be entertained while we watch bball! It'll be like that MTV craaaap! Rock and suck competition. ------------------ Not only am I president of the WaltWizFanClub, I'm also the member.
Haven, welcome to capitalism. I'm not arguing that the mikes are good for the sport or even good for entertainment. Personally, I could do without. However, the NBA and the owners made this move considering their economic self-interest. If the NBA cannot get ratings, it doesn't matter how pure the sport is, they'll go bankrupt. Coaches are just cogs in the machine. And while these cogs may want to produce high-quality basketball, the machine sees that as only a means to the end, not the end itself: making money. I won't object to criticisms of the wisdom of miking players and coaches. Maybe it won't help boost ratings any. But the coaches have no business refusing to follow orders except through their respective team owners or through the National Basketball Coaches Association. And both of these approaches would require they wear the mikes until a mediated settlement is reached.
Yes, the NBA is an entertainment company. Whatever the NBA thinks will promote entertainment, the coach should do. And I'm writing this from a drug-free workplace. I'm happy to pee in a jar whenever my boss snaps his fingers, and I'm sure all of you are, too. Whoever pays the bills calls all the shots, right?
I will make an attempt to answer before I haul my butt otta here for a much needed vacation in the Davis Mountains. You wrote: "...The NBA is an entertainment company. Looking at the micro-level, it is the coaches' job to win games. But they also should be expected to help the company do what it is trying to do. And it is trying to entertain." My Answer: 1. Not when it is detrimental to their first priority as you listed: win games. Winning at all costs is not the answer to any competitive game, but it should at least be the goal of the participants. If a key member of my team made a strong argument that he felt a conflict existed between his primary goal(win games) and a secondary goal(promote the media realtionship for the sport) I think I would side with him. Some team owners are saying they will pay the fines for the coaches if the coaches feel it will interfere with the performance of their "primary" role. 2. The real entertainment value of a miked coach is suspect. In every other sports entertainment industry we, the spectators have deemed what is entertaining and what is not. We do this simply by buying tickets or tuning into a game. This Mike/mic buisness is not the big thing that the league is making it out to be. Let me ask you this. If you had a choice between a winning team with no mic or one that was losing, but the home viewers got to listen to the coach tell a player one more time to rebound the %&*$# ball, what would you choose as the most entertaining? 3. Let me ask some of you out there another question. Would we be having this discussion if it involved a key player being asked by the league office to take an extended publicity tour while in the middle of a playoff race? How about MJ, still playing, and saying no way do I want Phil distracted in any Bulls games. You betcha we wouldn't. But if you wish to stand on the principle that the league has the right to unilaterally decide what individuals do to promote the game as a whole, then you must at least accept that the league office has the same mandate to order team emp[loyees to do things that are as seemingly unrelated to their primary role. Mmmmmmmm Maybe that means they can tell the Rockets PR guy to coach the team regardless of his ability or desire because it would make great media copy for Bob Costas when we play the Lakers, or the senior accountant gets to sell hot dogs because although he does his job well, this will show that everyone is a team player in the NEW DAVID STERN NBA !!!! You wrote: ".... As a business, the NBA needs its employees to try to help the company achieve its ends and make money. My Answer 1. Sorry the NBA League Office, which is forcing this issue, and making it a mandatory edict instead of leaving it alone .... is the governing body that is issued with promoting the sport for it's members. They have not asked any employee to do anything. They are demanding that some select coaches, employed by individual franchise teams, accept the request by some individual network executives, to wear mics while they (the coaches) perform their job. Maybe next time they select Mugsy Bogues to wear stilts, or Kelvin Cato not to pass the center line. Final Thoughts 1. This is not the long-fought final interpretation of a rule. This is a weak-kneed league office answering the whines of some network executive when he complained because some of the coaches would NOT do what he wanted WHEN he wanted it. This was a voluntary thing for the coaches at one time. Now it's a demand. And only for SOME coahes. 2.If this were an issue like the color-spot puck in the NHL, I would agree that there really exists a "no harm,no foul" guidance here somewhere. But that is not the case.To a coach this is not merely being asked to perform something minor while carrying out his duties. A coaches vehicle to impact any game is in his ability to impart information to the players during key moments throughout a game. Anything that harms, misdirects, impairs, or offers the opportunity to intercept that function .... should not be asked of a him. 3. This issue should never have come up at this juncture of the season. It is best served if the league lets it die and a study be made this off-season similiar to previous committee studies like: the addition(or hopefully deletion) of the third referee, changing basic zoning rules, possession clocks, etc.... Now is not the time. <center> I AM OTTA HERE!!!!!!! </center> [This message has been edited by popeye (edited March 14, 2000).]
In my opinion the Freak-man has hit the nail right on the proverbial head. The unsaid/between-the-lines league directive is really, ".... ah, um, oh yeah, I want you to concentrate and make a concerted effort to not say this or that .... during the game, because people may take that the wrong way, and blah, blah, blah ...... ." Kinda like asking Billy Martin not to swear or kick dirt when he was screaming at the umpire. Look,a coaches' job is to win the game on the court. Are we agreed on that? Not play PR to the front office or the league when his team is involved. I am sure they see this as an invasion of the only true remaining area that is under their direct control ... the game bench. I applaud the coaches who can successfully coach a game and pander to the media people and entertainment masses at the same time. But frankly, I equally admire the coach who says, piss-off I got a game to run here. The True Test Given the opportunity to choose, and without fear of reprisal or seeming to be "difficult" or going against the "spirit of the game", how many coaches would opt NOT to wear a recording device? You guessed it ...... every NBA coach worth his weight in ability. RT included.
Great, and let's put cameras in all the showers. That should boost ratings, too. Any team that tries to limit public "access" by refusing to put cameras in its showers has to cough up $100,000.
It's good to see we can all keep our arguements well grounded in reality. I'm sure the next time we watch an NFL Films presentation we'll all turn it off in disgust at the audacity the NFL shows in mic-ing players and coaches. I, for one, hate getting a glimpse of what it's like inside the huddle on a game winning drive orchestrated by one of the greatest passers in the history of the sport.
It seems unfair to argue against Popeye now that he has left for vacation, but I can't leave all that unanswered. On the first priority of the NBA: It is neither to entertain nor to win games. It is to make money. That is always the first priority for a business. The medium through which they make money is by entertaining people. And they generally entertain people by winning games. That is the priority list: money, entertainment, winning. If winning is not conducive to entertainment, they won't win; and if entertainment is not conducive to making money, they won't entertain. On the first priority of the NBA coach: The job of the coach is to win games, so that the NBA can fulfill its larger goals of entertaining and making money. Winning may be the first priority of the coach in general; but it cannot be when it no longer serves the ultimate end of the machine -- again, making money. On the entertainment value of mikes: Here I completely agree. I don't hardly watch any games this year and won't be any more likely to because of the mikes. However, I don't think the viewing habits of me or you can define the target audience of the NBA. Maybe it will fly with a different sort of viewer. I have my doubts there as well. But, the efficacy of NBA policy isn't at issue here anyway. The question is, should coaches obey when they are ordered. Should it matter if the order is a good one or a bad one? Some would say yes; if so, see the next paragraph. On the proper course of action for disgruntled coaches: When you question the wisdom of a policy set by your superiors, there are right ways and wrong ways to react. The wrong way is to say it is stupid and that you won't do it. This is what the coaches have done. They have channels they can operate by to formally challenge policy. One, they can appeal to their team-owners who, if convinced, could en-masse tell the central office to cease and desist. The central office is there, after all, to represent the interests of the owners. Two, if the owners are not sympathetic, the coaches are represented by the Coaches Association. This union can complain that the management has applied a unilateral change in workplace rules and sue to block them from doing it. The coaches can pursue one or both of these options, but in the meantime should comply with policy! On the league's mandate to promote the league: Should the PR man coach the Rockets if Alexander tells him to? He has three options: (1) say, "please I'd rather not" and hope to persuade Alexander to change his mind (Alexander would have to risk losing a good PR man by being unreasonable); (2) do it; (3) quit. All perfectly viable. However, it would be irrational for the NBA to do that because it would get them nowhere in terms of making money. On the NBA's unilateral change of workplace rules: They shouldn't have done it. They should have talked to the Coaches Association about it before trying to implement it. On the singling out of coaches: If Rudy, who has the 6th worst team in the NBA, has worn the mike 3 times, I'm sure everyone but Floyd and the Clips' coach (who is it nowadays?) would have been asked eventually. However, what does it matter if some are singled out? That doesn't alter any employer-employee relationship. On the weak-kneed league office answering the whines of some network executive: So what if it is? The NBA is nothing without television, so a little catering is called for in order to keep the relationship with the networks amiable. Besides, I doubt anyone thought it would be so big a deal that the term weak-kneed would be appropriate. After all, why shouldn't the NBA want to do it? On the principle of no-harm, no-foul: Why should it apply? The NBA is trying to make money and it is going to bull-doze everyone that gets in its way, as is the custom in business. At the moment, the coaches are actually hurting the NBA's profitability by turning this mike-fiasco into a scandal. Looking at the web-polls, everyone is against the mikes and it seems the coaches have managed to alienate the fans from the league a little bit more. On studying it in the off-season: This is one issue that cannot be studied in the off-season. You need to be able to see how it affects ratings, so you have to do it during the season. On the expendability of coaches: Coaches are cogs in the machine. If they hinder more than help the franchise to make money they will be replaced (see Fratello in Cleveland). I'm not suggesting that the refusal to wear a mike makes them a cancer. On the contrary, winning is sufficiently important that they can get away with a lot if they are talented. But refusing orders is a hindrance and definitely something the NBA is right to be upset about. It is true that we don't come to watch David Stern, but if it weren't for him (or whoever would take his office were he vaporized) we wouldn't be able to come watch at all -- and the players and coaches wouldn't have their guaranteed millions.
