cliffs: Jim Rome asks David Stern if the nba lottery is rigged, Stern's jimmies are good and rustled
cliffs: Jim Rome asks David Stern if the nba lottery is rigged, Stern's jimmies are good and rustled
Haha, that was hillarious
This is an old and commonly used phrase thats supposed to give a catch-22 because you cant Yes or No answer it (yes makes it seem like you did in the past, and no makes it seem like you are currently doing it). It's not an original line whatsoever.
The question was "Is the NBA lottery fixed?" He could have said "No" and laughed it off. It was a little unsettling that he hesitated, and then went with the "beating your wife" line. He doesn't need to be coy.
Personally, I've never understood why they can't just conduct the lottery on live TV, instead of doing it behind closed doors with some financial guy as a witness. That's not evidence that it's rigged, certainly, but it invites the speculation.
He's really just doing what most of us would do when asked the same question for the millionth time and you're tired of giving the same answer. Makes it easier when the asker is a guy like Rome.
OK, but he could avoid hearing the question if he'd let the actual lotto drawing take place on live TV, instead of doing it behind closed doors and then announcing the results afterward.
I agree with your point but the Cavs received the No.1 pick from the Mo Williams trade.
OK, but he could avoid hearing the question if he'd let the actual lotto drawing take place on live TV,
No he couldn't. You can see video anywhere you like of the very first draft lottery in 1985 and that's the one that caused people to say it was rigged in the first place. People will believe it's rigged because they want to, the same way people believe in aliens or a CIA conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy.
a newsletter I could subscribe to?
landed on the Moon either
No he couldn't. You can see video anywhere you like of the very first draft lottery in 1985 and that's the one that caused people to say it was rigged in the first place.
True, but that's partly because the way the NBA did it that year was pretty amateurish, with Stern grabbing an envelope out of a bowl. People have speculated that the NY envelope was weighted or had its corner deliberately bent.
The league claims to be doing it in a much more sophisticated way now, with ping-pong balls being drawn automatically out of a hopper, like a real lottery. I don't think it'd look too suspicious if they aired the drawing now.
That the envelope was refrigerated, so it felt cold and different?
And I don't think they're doing the ping pong balls anymore. It's weighted differently now. But if they did it like the lottery, on tv, with labeled ping pong balls, it would probably help a little. Though we might need them to count them first to convince everyone. Like a magic act...."Excuse me, Elgin Baylor, does this feel like a normal ping pong ball to you?"
I'm not a big conspiratorial person, but I will say that when some of the NBA's own executives are apparently whispering that there might have been foul play, it may be time for more transparency. This article is a little disturbing to read:
Over and over, maybe he should stop acting like more of a douche each time. There is no transparency to his system, and Stern is an egomaniacal prick. He may not like the question, but if he wanted to have any credibility, he could have just admitted it was a fair question, and then lied and said 'no, it's not fixed'. Stern was exposed as the arrogant jerk he has always been... He loves the pub when his ass is getting kissed, but takes cheap shots when asked a tougher question.
I know what the question was, my post was in response to the thread title.
The question was absolute garbage for 2 reasons:
1. Conspiracy theories are so boring. Really? NBA Lottery fixed, aliens are reading our minds unless we wear tinfoil hats, 9/11 was an inside job, blah blah blah. Bored.
2. Lets say, hypothetically, in the .0001% chance it is fixed, why bother asking david stern of all people? Of course he would lie about it. He's asking a question that has 1 answer -- "no" -- regardless of the truth. What's Stern going to do, respond with something like "Wow, yeah, it was fixed. You caught us. Guess i should resign in disgrace and get sued by literally anybody with a remote stake in the NBA or paid for a viewing experience of a fixed league."
Can't fault the commish for thinking it was a dumb question and I think its a dumb question whether you think the draft is fixed or not.
I agree with all that. I just don't agree that the question boxed him into a corner, as you suggested above. He could have said "No" and left it at that.
Then he cant say "no" without problems.
I would not be surprised if it was rigged. Who says it has to be random? The NBA is a private league that can hide this type of thing. It is none of our business if it is rigged or not.
As Michigan Family, we should know that DB leaves nothing to chance. Everything is scripted. Why does anyone think the NBA Lottery is random?
If it's true, then Stern shouldn't have the job he holds. I certainly disagree with the idea that it's "none of our business" if it's rigged.
People pay a lot of money to attend NBA games, with the expectation that the competition is fair and honest. If that were to turn out to be false, it'd be a huge scandal and cripple the NBA's business. Just look at how defensive the league got over the Donaghy allegations of crooked refereeing.
Rome pushed, like he always does. Does Chris Everett ring a bell?
Except I think it's 0.002% chance it's fixed..
So if that's the case, be transparent, Mr. Commissioner.
There is another live sports fan familiar with this classic question and its use as a reference point. Apparently no one at ESPN (where I first read the story) has heard of "have you stopped beating your wife" before.
I heard this live. It was a good interview (a little heated), but the question was asked by Stern as an analogy. BTW, the earlier interview with Charles Barkley was amazing.
I think David Stern is an awful commissioner, but I hate Rome more than Stern. I enjoyed that a ton.
Holy shit you can't be serious. Jim Rome is a complete joke and Stern is right when he said that his career is made from cheap tricks. Nothing shows that better than him putting a bounty on Gordie Howe's head.
I'm disappointed in you.
Rome is a turd. always has been always will be.
I think I speak on behalf of all turds in saying that we're offended that you compare him to us.
basically went Jim Everitt on him. That was a great interview. I can't stand Rome 99% of the time, but I do commend him for asking the question. I also can't stand Stern, however kudos to him for giving it back to Rome.
How do you commend Rome for asking that? There was clearly nothing to be gained from the question, he was just trolling for a reaction. I don't think that's commendable journalism.
Say what you want of Rome, I feel like the commissioner handled that very poorly.
I sort of wonder if this whole thing was planned to attract some attention.
Stern had a 'take' and did not suck
"That's not a good call, nah. I don't like that call...not a very good call!"
a small man who has overseen a league populated with athletes with unbelievable skill sets, no helmets or masks to conceal their personalities from the audience, and marquee franchises in marquee cities. What has happened to the NBA? Sucks a little worse every....single....year. Stern got a legit dig in on Rome, but he's failing as a commissioner.
True and I hate them both. Does Rome still do the crumpled paper sound effect?
Does he still say something that he thinks is funny and then repeat 25 times in a row to fill air time?
I don't "get" you.
What are you talking about?
The NBA's entering a golden period. There's a new generation of intriguing, attractive stars (Rose, the OKC crew). A villain that everyone loves to hate. The level of play in the playoffs has been tremendous. The league is doing its highest ratings since the Jordan era. And the league avoided labor apocalypse this year. The NBA is as healthy as its been since the 1990s.
Um, no, to the first question. The first team I rooted for was the '79 Sonics, then those mid-80s Bucks teams that were great but always stuck behind the Sixers and Celtics.
Just because the mid-80s to the late 90s were a golden age doesn't mean we aren't on a verge of a new one. The NBA went into a ratings tailspin when Jordan retired. The play went downhill with all the high schoolers entering the league, who hadn't ever really been challenged by comparable competition and thus never really had to refine their games. Even LeBron took 8 years to figure out that he needed to learn a post game.
Both the team play and the ratings have returned. The conference finals just did there best numbers in over a decade. The most successful teams are playing more team ball today than any teams since the Bad Boy Pistons. San Antonio was amazing to watch, and OKC has emerged as a potentially great team as they've moved away from the isolation that characterized their game last year. Add in defensive play by the final 4 teams this year has been sublime, without the grabbing and holding that used to characterize defense in the era of the Riley Knicks.
I find the rest of your complaints pretty empty. The complaints about carrying the ball go back to at least Isiah's enterance into the league. People have literally complained about traveling in the NBA as long as I can remember. The WWE complaints? The league was far more violent, and the defense less well played in the 80s than today (the refs have actually taken a lot of the passion out of the playoffs by T'ing up everything even beginning to approach a confrontation and any woofing at all). If your reference about the WWE is about fixing ... that of course goes back to the Even the criticism of flopping goes back to at least Laimbeer.
I'd criticize Stern for three things.
1. The charge-block call threatens to damage aggressive offensive basketball in the same way it has in college, where it's absolutely a plague.
2. The Chris Paul thing this year made no sense.
3. He was so freaked out by the Palace brawl that he dicated changes to the way conflict is officiated that has changed the game for the worse.
Just to add to this already tedious post, last night's game did the best ratings number of any Finals game 1 since ESPN/ABC acquired the finals in the 2002-3 season.
If you mean it's doing better than when the NBA was an unpopular joke, then yes, it's regaining credibility. But it's a long way from it's golden age...and a way's to go to get to the silver age.
|CBS||1976||Boston Celtics 4, Phoenix Suns 2||11.5|
|CBS||1977||Portland Trail Blazers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 2||12.7|
|CBS||1978||Washington Bullets 4, Seattle Supersonics 3||9.9|
|CBS||1979||Seattle Supersonics 4, Washington Bullets 1||7.2|
|CBS||1980||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 2||8.0|
|CBS||1981||Boston Celtics 4, Houston Rockets 2||6.7|
|CBS||1982||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 2||13.0|
|CBS||1983||Philadelphia 76ers 4, Los Angeles Lakers 0||12.3|
|CBS||1984||Boston Celtics 4, Los Angeles Lakers 3||12.3|
|CBS||1985||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Boston Celtics 2||13.7|
|CBS||1986||Boston Celtics 4, Houston Rockets 2||14.1|
|CBS||1987||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Boston Celtics 2||15.9|
|CBS||1988||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Detroit Pistons 3||15.4|
|CBS||1989||Detroit Pistons 4, Los Angeles Lakers 0||15.1|
|CBS||1990||Detroit Pistons 4, Portland Trail Blazers 1||12.3|
|NBC||1991||Chicago Bulls 4, Los Angeles Lakers 1||15.8|
|NBC||1992||Chicago Bulls 4, Portland Trail Blazers 2||14.2|
|NBC||1993||Chicago Bulls 4, Phoenix Suns 2||17.9|
|NBC||1994||Houston Rockets 4, New York Knicks 3||12.4|
|NBC||1995||Houston Rockets 4, Orlando Magic 0||13.9|
|NBC||1996||Chicago Bulls 4, Seattle Supersonics 2||16.7|
|NBC||1997||Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2||16.8|
|NBC||1998||Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2||18.7|
|NBC||1999||San Antonio Spurs 4, New York Knicks 1||11.3|
|NBC||2000||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Indiana Pacers 2||11.6|
|NBC||2001||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 1||12.1|
|NBC||2002||Los Angeles Lakers 4, New Jersey Nets 0||10.2|
|ABC||2003||San Antonio Spurs 4, New Jersey Nets 2||6.5|
|ABC||2004||Detroit Pistons 4, Los Angeles Lakers 1||11.5|
|ABC||2005||San Antonio Spurs 4, Detroit Pistons 3||8.2|
|ABC||2006||Miami Heat 4, Dallas Mavericks 2||8.5|
|ABC||2007||San Antonio Spurs 4, Cleveland Cavaliers 0||6.2|
|ABC||2008||Boston Celtics 4, Los Angeles Lakers 2||9.3|
|ABC||2009||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Orlando Magic 1||8.4|
|ABC||2010||Los Angeles Lakers 4, Boston Celtics 3||10.6|
|ABC||2011||Dallas Mavericks 4, Miami Heat 2||10.2|
And it's lost ground in the favorite sports ranking, dropping as far as 5th last year (behind auto racing!). Since the popularity crash it has pretty much stayed about the same-
So the play is certainly better, and there's a better group of players than there has been in awhile. But the interest is just growing back up from the "does anyone watch this anymore?" levels of post-Jordan to....ok/70's level of interest.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
If the question as as "ridiculous" as Stern said it was, he wouldn't have gotten so upset. He would have done a "yeah, right" and not even thought about it again. Stern was definitely not happy with the question, and it apparenlty "struck too close to home."
All they need to do is put the old system back in and get rid of the lottery. Then, there won't be any questions, and the "coincidence" of Patrick Ewing ending up in the league's biggest market during the first lottery can stand alone as one of the biggest farces in sports.
"Listen, I gotta go call somebody important like Stephen A. Smith back."
Good ol' Rome.
He's the second best sports talk show host on Radio, first being Tony Kornheiser. When you look at what Rome had the guts to do to Stern, and then you compare that with something innocuous like "Mike and Mike in the Morning", you will realize Rome isn't that bad.
Was also a good question given rampant speculation about a league-owned team winning the lottery.
your stupid and my opinion carries a lot more weight.. Mike and Mike are excellent so you better watch your whorish mouth
There's a difference between being a good journalist and being an asshole who retreats right after he finds out he's in above his head.
Jim Rome is a horse's ass.. Gave up on his voice screaming like a horn and calling dbag callers clones... Terrible sports radio.. Jim Everett should have whooped his ass
Is there a 'good' sports radio?
I think Michigan Insider on WTKA is a good show, particularly when the topic is Michigan-related. I also think there are some good shows on WSCR in Chicago, and there's a really good football guy here in Atlanta (Chuck Oliver).
But in general I agree - on balance, sports radio is pretty awful. Then again, I think sports commentary as a whole is pretty awful. Great piece by Spencer Hall today that satirizes a large chunk of sports commentary (link here).
I really enjoy Shep in the morning.
I used to listen to a lot of sports radio but I quit because it got uninteresting. Dan Patrick is a professional and has a pretty good show. Tony Kornheiser is also hilarious.
ESPN Radio is awful though. I hear Van Pelt is alright, but Cowherd and Mike and Mike are two of the most deplorable hosts out there. Cowherd is more of a jackass than Jim Rome (remember, he was the one who plagiarized a Michigan site) and Mike and Mike are extremely uninteresting and annoying. "Heeeeeeey Greeny!"
if the commish were in studio he would have lunged at him Jim Everett style.
That reason is people are stupid.
I'm ashamed to say that I've called his show frequently. I've been a Rome slappy for years.
No, not ashamed that I listen to Jim Rome. Ashamed that I admit to being a sports talk radio caller...
You're still not done jerking him off. We get it. You like ROME and must defend him to the death!
Let it go.....................
Me too. He's aware that he's a loudmouth bro. But the fact is, he is witty and has some of the best impromptu bits in radio. His show is repetitive but it has to be since it's a 3 hour drive format. His delivery is funny because it's so ridiculous. Sean Bulegian
...Huge, M&M along with all ESPN Radio (minus SVP) are awful. At least Rome stands by his opinions (although obnoxiously) and doesn't take his show too seriously.
I think people forget that its not like the NBA does the lottery by themselves. E&Y oversees them. Do you really think one of the largest accounting firms in the world would risk BILLIONS just to rig a draft. As an accountant, I think this is the biggest hurdle to the only rigging. I could see the NBA doing it but not E&Y agreeing.
Before you say E&Y gets paid a ton from the NBA I gaurentee the NBA isnt even a top 10 client for them.
I asked Arthur Andersen if they would risk BILLIONS and they said "No. Enron, what's Enron?"...
BUT...it is about a perception, or big cloud that hangs over it. So, why not make it public...pick the little lottery ball out of the blowy big ball on television. David Stern has created the doubt that exists, and he can make it go away. But his big, fat, "little man complex" makes him constantly have to flex his muscles, and show everyone who is in charge. The more he acts like this, the questions will continue.
His little rant basically took everyone's eyes of the question and made people look at something else. He "wagged the dog" so the doubters can think he still has something to hide. When (IMHO) he just wants to show everyone he's in charge, here. Now all you little people, stop questioning him.
I agree that JR asks the hard questions, but he is so callous and obnoxious about.
it comes across like he was to irritate guests not get real answers out of them.
His voice is annoying and his choppy speech drives me nuts!
He sounds like a robot.
I hate Rome. Talks to himself for hours. "BEST INTERVIEW EVER! HOW SICK WAS THAT?!? THAT INTERVIEW WAS AN 1000 out of 10.. SO SICK." I can't stand him.. Give me SVP anyday.
How exactly was Stern supposed to answer?
The way he did.
Was definitely fair, and at the same time its nice to see Rome get whats coming to him every now and then...
Even without the wife line, that's a great interview. To David Stern: +1.
i thought stern came off like a pouty child.
it would have been much easier just to say "no" and end it at that.
instead he had to insult rome because he was so peeved at the thought of corruption. this, btw, from a league that has had proven corruption issues with the referees, you may recall.
I will say that Stern probably could and should have handled that with a little more dignity, but the question that Rome asked - "Is the NBA lottery fixed?" - probably wasn't going to get a much different response other than what it did. I actually chuckled a little at him for being somewhat snarky in kind.
I would argue that it was a bit misleading as a question, and in this case intentionally so, along the lines of a similar example "Does Bill have a cousin in prison?". Bill may not, but the question implies that there is a need to ask it based on some evidence. Rome's question is sort of like that. It might not be the case, but it happens infrequently enough in day-to-day life or has such a controversial presupposition that many assume that there was a reason to ask it.
So, it wasn't too shocking when Stern replied with the classic example of a complex question, because that is sort of where Rome was taking the discussion. If Rome was looking to have meaningful discourse on the subject, that was not the question to ask.
You must have heard how the question was framed.
It is a totally fair question considering the cloud over the current lottery methods and a fair amount of perception. The criticism of Rome on this is baffling. He asked the question and then got personally attacked. And I'm not referring to the wife beating analogy Stern used. Jim Rome interviews people, and asks questions, and if David Stern doesn't like the question, he personally attacks Romes credibility.
The lottery results are usually interesting, to say the least.
is a complete tool! Good for the commish
I totally thought this was about Howard...
Stern just got himself racked for the Smackoff.
please make football start soon.
Has anyone tried that new non-stick aluminum foil for their hat? It's expensive, but you only have one brain.
Rome is a tool, but I listen to his radio show because I can't stomach Mike Valenti. This is basically him getting fed his own medicine by a guy I also don't exactly respect.
I can't believe all the Rome hating here. Listen, you guys need to give his show two weeks. If after two weeks of listening, you still don't get it, then give it two more weeks...
I will say that Jim may be a dick and probably deserved what he had coming to him, but Stern really didn't do himself any good by letting Jim get under his skin and in turn be a dick back to him. Just makes himself look bad, and, being the commissioner, he should show a bit more professionalism than someone who's job is to be a little unprofessional.
Jim came out looking like a victim here, which he definitely is not. And I will bet on the fact that Jim was loving the reaction he got out of David Stern. It's entertainment, which brings up his ratings and gets people talking about his him/his show (such as this blog).
Jim got what he wanted and more from this interview.
I find it pathetic that people on this forum will now downvote other posters simply because they dont agree with their opinions on the subject matter of what radio show they like to listen to. Act like adults on this site please.
Holy hell are these two perfect for each other. Both of them are borderline incompetent in their respective fields, and absolutely annoying at best.
Stern has proven over and over again to be a toad, who has little control over the league at it's core.
Rome, is the poster child for nails on a chalk board. I stopped listening to him when he started saying the same thing over and over again during a segment, thinking that if I say "poop" 4 times in a row, the 4th time will be the funniest. He obviously hasn't studied the law of diminishing returns.
That was the most uncomfortable interview I've ever heard on Rome's show. Stern and Rome usually joke around like buddies. That was VERY interesting. The fact that the NBA OWNS the Hornets, does in fact create a conflict of interest. The league shouldn't be allowed to own a team. Period.
I have to admit that Rome is a guilty pleasure of mine, but his schtick, and especially the callers gets old sometimes, so every now and again I gotta step back for awhile. I just happened to catch the tail end of the interview, and Stern came off like a complete arrogant asshole. Was it a dumb question? Yeah, but a simple yes or no would have been suffice.
And Stephen A. Smith?! Give me a break. Rome might be annoying, but Smith is just intolerable.
I will say that I have heard him since 2003, but yeah, I take a few breaks from listening every now and then. I did listen to the first hour but I was out buying groceries, then I saw the Euro 2012 game. He does go on for 5 or 10 minutes about one topic, which is a little annoying sometimes.
I am not familiar with Rome's personal life and wife beating allegations are to say the least a very strong allegation. Does Rome have a record of doing this? If not those are very slanderous comments by the commissioner.
Do your parents know you're gay?
you are an (_I_) hole!
But he wasn't asking that question in a literal sense. It is a question asked because it can't be answered (look again at how it is worded).
Stern asked Rome that because he didn't like Rome's question.
He should have asked "Is the NBA Lottery still fixed?"