David Stern: Heel or Hero?

[Andrew]

The other day I happened to read a couple of the comments on an article at Yahoo! Sports about David Stern taking action against Isiah Thomas after the jury ruled against MSG and noticed that one individual boldly declared that David Stern was the worst thing to happen to the NBA. Anti-Stern sentiment is certainly nothing new; pretty much every time a ruling is handed down that a lot of fans disagree with, cries of "Damn you, Stern!" ring out along with demands that he resign his position.

Now, I don't agree with every decision that David Stern has made. I'm not a fan of his vision for global expansion and there have been some decisions by the league that have been odd, unnecessarily harsh or inconsistent during his tenure. I would suggest that as a human being, he is no more perfect than the rest of us. But when I saw that post the other day it got me thinking. Is David Stern truly a terrible executive who has run the NBA into the ground?

In all honesty, I would have to say no.

Stern's tenure as NBA commissioner did begin at an opportune time. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were just a few years into their storied NBA careers and Michael Jordan arrived the same year that Stern succeeded Larry O'Brien. Having a trio of talented and marketable players such as Jordan, Johnson and Bird and running the NBA in an era that saw the continued expansion of global media especially through the Internet in the mid 90s certainly helped the league's success. Of course, Stern capitalised on that growth and development very effectively and aside from being a huge success in terms of revenue, it has arguably aided in facilitating more foreign born players to make the jump to the NBA by giving them "access" and exposure to the league.

There will always be debate over which era in basketball is the strongest and whether each era surpasses the one that came before it, but I would suggest that whether you consider the 80s and 90s the NBA's "Golden Era" or the pinnacle of its existence to date, it was a successful era for the NBA in terms of revenue, television ratings, international exposure and basketball itself, relatively free of scandal. It was a great time to be a basketball fan.

It's difficult to say how much credit Stern deserves for that success. As I said before, he had the benefit of talented and marketable players who excelled at the game and thrilled the fans, beyond the big three of Jordan, Bird and Magic. One might argue that his success came about due to good fortune and following the old adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", though I would suggest that knowing when to intervene and when to leave things be shows good judgement and while the 80s and 90s provided the NBA with the opportunities it needed to become as big as it did, opportunities are easily blown.

When Stern has asserted his authority however, it has not always been for the best. The lockout certainly didn't win over many fans but that was hardly Stern's fault alone; owners, players and agents were to blame for that as well. However, changes like the NBA's dress code have been initiatives that have had good intentions but strike many as petty with the punishment unfitting of the crime, especially when attire that could pass as "smart casual" has been deemed unacceptable.

The controversy over the new ball last season was poorly handled as well. The dismissal of player complaints on the basis of the NBA's "testing" and indeed Stern's own "road test" of the ball was just plain silly, though the eventual decision to go back to the traditional ball did somewhat salvage a situation where the league seemed to be telling the people most familiar with the equipment what was best for them and they've had to learn to like it. For Stern, admitting the NBA dropped the ball on that one - no pun intended - was the right move to make.

It's due to issues like the dress code and the new ball controversy, combined with Stern's position of power that have made him a popular and easy scapegoat for anything and everything that fans see as being wrong with the NBA. It comes with the territory and ultimately Stern has to take some responsibility for what happens in his league but at times I think the scapegoating and the Stern bashing goes too far.

Consider the scandal with Tim Donaghy. It didn't take very long before the spotlight moved away from the disgraced former official to David Stern as people wondered how he could possibly allow a scandal of this magnitude to compromise the integrity of the NBA. Suddenly it wasn't about what Donaghy did but rather that Stern "allowed" him to do it, essentially getting the person who committed the crime and given the NBA a black eye off the hook as the buck was passed and blame shifted.

It's natural to an extent. When someone gets away with what Donaghy did for as long as he did in a league that prides itself on keeping its nose clean as the NBA does, questions are going to be asked. Besides, Donaghy's been caught. The courts will deal with him now and the NBA will co-operate whenever it's required of them. That leaves David Stern, his administration and the rest of the league officials under the microscope, left to answer all those questions and take the blame for an individual's actions. Again, it comes with the territory but that doesn't necessarily make it fair.

On the whole, I would say that David Stern has been a successful commissioner whose tenure has benefited the league, admittedly with a few bumps, bruises and bad decisions along the way. The nature of the position guarantees that he'll have to make tough decisions and at times draw the ire of fans and become an unpopular figure. Not every venture will be successful and not every decision will be met with approval, but David Stern, the worst thing to happen to the NBA? Hardly.

So...what is your verdict on David Stern? Professional basketball's biggest villain or successful executive and effective leader?

[cyanide]

I think Stern's done a great job overall, especially with keeping the league professional rather than a gangsta playground. He obviously can't be at fault for the Ron Artest brawl. There are a few things that I don't like coming from him, such as unbalanced suspension times (not sure if that's more of Stu Jackson's fault), the new ball, and a bit of an extreme dress code. He has given too much free regin to the referees, though I'm glad that Crawford got suspended for the rest of that season. Also it's hard to say how Stern is able to monitor Donaghy if it was kept at hush-hush levels. Overall, though over his tenure, he's done a great job at keeping the league successful and popular.

[shadowgrin]

For the Donaghy scandal, it wasn't Stern's fault entirely for letting it happen. He was told by the FBI years ago that Donaghy was a suspect of game fixing. Stern was ready to take immediate action but from what I understand the FBI convinced him to keep it hush-hush so the FBI could investigate more to gather solid evidence and to determine any accomplices.

I would say he's a great executive that he does what's best for the image of the league, but an average leader. Slip-ups such as the ball, dress code, unbalanced suspensions/fines have more to do with him overly trusting the ideas/decisions of those who work under him.

[NNpF]

I agree with almost everything that has been said, the new ball was handled very poorly and I think suspensions do need to be more balanced.

But the dress code? Some people fail to realize this is their job. You don't come to work in shirts three sizes to big, pants down to your knees and jewelry hanging around your balls...

They can all afford suits, it't not as if Stern is picking out the suits for them. I think that this was such a big deal in the first place is ridiculous.

I think Stern's done a fairly good job overall, it's just hard being a commissioner of any league because so many problems are put on your shoulders and no matter what your decision is there will always be the group that agrees with your decision and the group that doesn't.

[Drex]

But the dress code? Some people fail to realize this is their job. You don't come to work in shirts three sizes to big, pants down to your knees and jewelry hanging around your balls...

Isn't their job to play basketball? They work with shorts down to their knees and shirts three sizes too big, right?

[Andrew]

But the dress code? Some people fail to realize this is their job. You don't come to work in shirts three sizes to big, pants down to your knees and jewelry hanging around your balls...

I agree that it's well within the NBA's right to enforce a dress code for players sitting on the bench, though as I said I believe it's eliminated dress that could be considered "smart casual" and I personally would consider acceptable. It's one of those things that can come across as being a bit petty, though it is an issue that's admittedly overblown at times.

[Fresh8]

I think that Stern has done a great job in helping the league expand and prosper. For me personally, all the things Stern has done to make the league competitive and equally entertaining is what makes him a successful exec.

Some of the changes that he brang in but failed were gambles. But it takes a good leader to make that gamble. In the end, it was his call and when it didn't work; he rectified it. Furthermore, for people who think the dress code is a good enough reason to be anti-Stern, the dress code is the least of my worries (and should be the least of anyone else's worries) when assesing if he has been an asset to the league.

[maceo24]

I think the dress code, while a little too stringent on what is sint allowed, is exactly what should have been implemented. It was time to formalize the league a little bit. In the wake of the brawl and all the things that were going on at the time, It was the best way to get not only our minds off of the other madness, it diverted the players attention as well.

[Andrew]

That's true. I do think that the situation with the new ball was handled much worse, at least to begin with. The fact that Stern seemed to be dismissing the player's criticisms and evaluation of the ball in favour of his own observations and the "testing" the NBA had performed during the offseason was ridiculous since the players are the ones who are using the equipment. Admitting the mistake and going back to the old ball was a great move, though I thought it was funny that there were some players and coaches who complained about going back to the old ball midway through the season, even though returning to the old ball was exactly what they were campaigning for.

[shadowgrin]

I bet Luke Walton was sad when the old ball returned.