OT: The NBPA and the Clippers situation
I'd suspected that at least some of the players on the Clippers had threatened to boycott their next playoff game if Donald Sterling wasn't swiftly punished. But according to the VP of the NBA's players' union, it was even more dramatic than that: many players spread across many teams were threatening to boycott.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10858191/nbpa-vice-president-roger-ma…
I think this is an important illustration of a role that a sports union can play, which I think is relevant to the distant future of current unionization efforts within the NCAA. But there will be plenty of people who disagree with me about that, including the Ghost of Section 1, PBUH, who we can all pretend has already posted below that the rush to judgment of Donald Sterling forced by the villiainously PC NBPA is representative of a great evil threatening civilization. YMMV.
I made a new topic here because I didn't see this discussed in the original Donald Sterling thread, and because I thought it might be interesting to discuss this in connection with NCAA unionization efforts. What are the red lines that might lead to boycott threats from players? Presumably documented racism by a coach/AD would qualify, but what about coaches who regularly oversign? What about preposterously punitive drug testing policies? Or are D1 NCAA football or basketball players too diverse a class to come to a consensus about a boycott over anything?
Sterling was more than obviously sleasy and deserving of this punishment, but I would be interested if racial comments are now the actual bar for being banished from the NBA for life moving forward at every level from players to coaches, front office?
I could be incorrect, but one of the things at the core of the reasoning for the lifetime ban for Sterling was in the NBA's bylaws themselves - "conduct detrimental or prejudicial to the team or league" - so I would assume it would at least be a possibilityin a similar scenario for anyone employed by a team or by the NBA itself.
Like anything, reference to a bylaw is great if it becomes universally accepted in practice. I would be interested if this same stance is taken by the players association in the future when a player is now under scrutiny for racial comments.
While it does not appear there were any formal grievance procedures followed, Silver's actions would seem to indicate a new precedence and procedure for dealing with these transgressions in the future.
the adjectives and names attributed to Richard Sherman after the win against the 49ers--ape, primate, gorilla, monkey, asshole, ghetto, ignorant, selfish and America's favorite racial slur.People on this message board used those terms to describe him?
You can boycott all you want and players can refuse to play games. It's still going to be hard to force him to sell his team. No one would get paid in this situation but, the owners have much bigger cash reserves and other sources of income. The majority players have no other alternative source of income. Look to the NHL and their lockouts. The players took such bad deals because their hand is forced. I have no idea what the language looks like for a NBA franchiese's contract with the NBA or the CBA with the players union. It's not going to be simple to get him out. I'm certain there is some blanket statement but, would that fall into this? Is a mediator going to allow a private phone call that sterling didn't know he was being recorded in? Would like to see him go asap but, I dont think this is going to progress very quickly.
Do you really think the NBA owners would let one idiot mess with their money and sacrifice the entire league for someone who the nation feels is a racist?
Do you really think the NBA owners are going to piss off their own players because of some other guy?
This isn't a lockout situation over money and power, that's where your analogy is off and incorrect. Neither is being argued here. This would be a stand against discrimination and racism and a showing of "togetherness."
If all of the NBA players decided not to play, during the playoffs...it would be a black eye that the NBA wouldn't want to risk for the sake of its image. Does the NBA really want to take a stance against something like this? Because whether they are or aren't...that's what ESPN is going to paint it as. That's what popular American culture would paint it as.
It would never happen...especially since many of the owners agree wholeheartedly with the players and mainstream America.
This whole thing is about image...Donald Sterling is out, not because he thought a certain way, but because how his throughts came out in speech (even private speech) and how they affected the IMAGE of the NBA. If they're concerned about image now, they'd never come together to fight the players and hurt their image even more.
So sure they'd win in a pure money blood bath...but this isn't about money.
The players at Minnesota State collectively walked out of Spring practice when Todd Hoffner returned to his head coaching position after being acquitted of child porn charges. The players wanted Aaron Keen - the guy who replaced Hoffner - to remain head coach.
They did this without union representation.
So there are at least two cases where players have refused to practice or play as a team. The Minnesota State Mankato players backed down after a few days. I don't know what happened with Grambling State. (Here's John Bacon on Grambling State.) These programs, of course, aren't full of players with NFL aspirations, but maybe that doesn't matter. I don't think anything is harmed by creating an official organization to formalize the decision making procedure about whether to strike, especially since a union would also provide a way to negotiate short of striking. But I guess people who think unions make for hostile negotiating environments won't be impressed by that idea.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
but a lot of that sounds like posturing.