what? no Buzz Bisssinger?

what? no Buzz Bisssinger?

I didn't have Bissinger's contact info. That would have been a hoot to add in.

By the way, Armstrong really went the distance on his submission. Goes into great detail on the maple bat situation.

I didn't have Bissinger's contact info. That would have been a hoot to add in.

"A blog? What, you done talking about Matt Leinert ####### a bunch of coeds? Done talking about trash? #### you! #### your blog! Write a book and read some famous writers. #### blogs"

Nice job Maury.

To me, the most important things to take away are:

- The RBI program was a nice start, but it needs to start expanding to other urban areas in the U.S.
- Baseball is good at marketing the game, but not the stars.

To me, the most important things to take away are:

- The RBI program was a nice start, but it needs to start expanding to other urban areas in the U.S.
- Baseball is good at marketing the game, but not the stars.

The interesting thing was that no one collaborated -- submissions were done without outside input. When I would get asked by a prospective panelist on what to cover, I would tell them, "It's open to your interpretation."

With that, it was fascinating to see a number of us talk about marketing star players better.

Maybe it's bad for the game, but on some level I really LIKE that the stars aren't being marketed for their own sake. Call me an old fogey, but to see that sort of thing would upset my notions about what's good about baseball compared to the other sports (mostly basketball), and that's that one player really can't make the difference. It's a team sport unlike the others, football included, in that each and every player can, throretically speaking, get the glory depending on the game situation and how they perform.

On a more alarmist note, does anyone read the recent murmurings about the NBA fixing games and wonder whether that is a logical, albeit extreme result of a league that seeks to elevate certain marquee stars over others as the central plank of its marketing platform? There are millions on the line (for multiple stakeholders) if a LeBron or a Dewayne Wade wins a title as opposed to a faceless bunch of guys like the Pistons. I read the reports of game rigging with skepticism, but given the NBA's m.o. since the Magic-Byrd era, they aren't implausible either.

There are millions on the line (for multiple stakeholders) if a LeBron or a Dewayne Wade wins a title as opposed to a faceless bunch of guys like the Pistons. I read the reports of game rigging with skepticism, but given the NBA's m.o. since the Magic-Byrd era, they aren't implausible either.

I'll bite because I always defend the NBA.

To say that there's a conspiracy would mean that it goes all the way up to Stern. I just can't believe that is true. The man may rule with an iron fist, but he's not stupid. Now, there may (and has been) crooked refs, and there are also bad refs, but I fail to believe that this goes all the to the top. If this were true, the Spurs and Pistons wouldn't sniff titles, yet they've won 5 of the last 10. Last year, the NBA would've gone out of their way to make sure LeBron beat the Spurs. This didn't happen. If this were all done for money and tv, there's not much explanation that the Spurs or Pistons would win once, much less 50%. Even once would be a big hit in money and ratings, 50% is ridiculous.

What I think you have is a very very tough sport to officiate. The game moves incredibly fast, and the men are very large. There could probably be a foul called every play (like in football). But, the big difference is, in basketball fouls directly result in points and benchings. I think you have a group of refs of varying skills officiating a very difficult sport with their calls directly leading to points.

One of my favorite "media" myths about basketball is that the game wasn't officiated fairly if the fouls aren't close to even at the end. That, to me, seems more conspiratorial than just calling the game like it is.

And when I mean the RBI program needs to improve in urban areas, I don't mean New York, Houston, and Chicago. I mean, that would be nice, but I'll really start to acknowledge the Urban Academy as something other than a PR stunt when I see one in Little Rock, AR, Trenton, NJ and Gary, IN. Obviously it doesn't have to be those places specifically, but the point stands.

To say that there's a conspiracy would mean that it goes all the way up to Stern. I just can't believe that is true.

I don't believe it's true either. Or, at least I'd need to see some actual evidence as opposed to rank gossip mongering before I gave the theory any weight.

But [that's the Peter Gammons "But!" there]:

The theory doesn't even have gossipy legs if the conditions aren't amenable to it, and when the league spends so much time focusing on individual stars like the NBA does, those conditions exist. This doesn't mean that any rigging has occurred, but the fact that it even has to address the issue is a negative for it.

The theory doesn't even have gossipy legs if the conditions aren't amenable to it, and when the league spends so much time focusing on individual stars like the NBA does, those conditions exist. This doesn't mean that any rigging has occurred, but the fact that it even has to address the issue is a negative for it.

Why wouldn't they focus on individual stars? You have guys that you get to see their faces every game, you can dictate when they get the ball and score, they can play the entire game, and there's only five guys on the floor. Everyone likes to rip the NBA for marketing stars, but why wouldn't they?

Now, there may (and has been) crooked refs, and there are also bad refs, but I fail to believe that this goes all the to the top.

LeBron wouldn't be in Cleveland either.

LeBron wouldn't be in Cleveland either.

And the Knicks wouldn't be one of the most incompetent teams in pro sports. It all sounds good on talk radio, but once you look at the state of the league with some logic, it doesn't hold much water.

What, we're supposed to believe Donaghy because he took a game that's been talked about for the last 6 years because it was poorly officiated, and now he says it was poorly officiated. Wow, shocker. I mean, he wouldn't have used that particular game because everyone talks about it, right?

I won't argue that the NBA is fixed from the top-down, but I think the widely held assumption that the NBA "wants" the Knicks to win more than some team from a smaller city (and that the Knicks being successful is "good for the league") is pretty much garbage.

I won't argue that the NBA is fixed from the top-down, but I think the widely held assumption that the NBA "wants" the Knicks to win more than some team from a smaller city (and that the Knicks being successful is "good for the league") is pretty much garbage.

No, this I won't agree with. The NBA (in this case, Stern and the owners) want money. And, the NBA makes, in theory, more money when the big teams are good. Chicago, LA, the Knicks, Boston, Philly. Those are the teams that will bring in the tv ratings and make everyone money. San Antonio, Detroit, Portland, and Milwaukee don't bring in the viewers. I'd be shocked if the Finals this year don't get better ratings than the Finals last year.

I think this is true for all the sports. You don't think that baseball loves having Boston and New York be good? The Cubs? That makes money, and at the end of the day thats what the commissioner and the owners want.

Now, again, taking that and saying there's a conspiracy is just a step too far for me.

correct me if i'm wrong, but the NBA's earnings don't directly fluctuate with the ratings, right? They sell the TV rights in advance, and would hypothetically make the same amount for those playoffs if no one watched, or if trillions watched. Of course, ratings will drive future TV contracts but I dont think ABC or whoever will pay through the nose for future playoffs just because there was a huge uptick that was obviously due to Boston + LA being in the finals. And I would assume that the Knicks can generate a ton of cash, even when terrible, which might not be the case for teams in smaller cities.

Of course, ratings will drive future TV contracts but I dont think ABC or whoever will pay through the nose for future playoffs just because there was a huge uptick that was obviously due to Boston + LA being in the finals.

Bingo. If the networks are losing money because they can't generate advertising revenue, then they aren't going to pay much for it either.

And I would assume that the Knicks can generate a ton of cash, even when terrible, which might not be the case for teams in smaller cities.

No, but there's revenue sharing in the NBA.

Baseball is good at marketing the game, but not the stars.

I find this amusing because I think the opposite is true. A lot of baseball teams tend to market the star players on the other team - "See the Rays take on David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, and the rest of the Boston Red Sox" - in their effort to get extra fans out to the park.

-- MWE

Whether or not the NBA fixes game in the 1919 World Series sense it certainly isn't played with a level playing field. The NBA has passed over from sport to entertainment and can no longer be taken seriously.

I don't know whether the allegations are true but they are plausible. There have been too many question marks, too many dubious league office decisions, too many quirky drafts, too many playoff series determined by the officiating to dismiss anything out of hand. Once you grant the possibility the credibility is gone forever. The NBA needs a Judge Landis and some major scalps if it once to appear legitimate.

To say that there's a conspiracy would mean that it goes all the way up to Stern.

Of COURSE it goes up to David Stern. Stern was the originator of the league's "Jordan Jockriding" policy.

I find this amusing because I think the opposite is true. A lot of baseball teams tend to market the star players on the other team - "See the Rays take on David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, and the rest of the Boston Red Sox" - in their effort to get extra fans out to the park.

I was thinking bigger. Not MLB pumping MLB. The reference by guys like Bandenhausen was in regard to Wall St. ad agencies. I see Dwayne Wade or Jordan or Favre every 10 seconds, it seems. Really, beyond a couple of guys like Jeter, how many national ad campaigns have been focused around MLB players? This probably has more to do with companies not looking for MLBers more than anything.

Everyone likes to rip the NBA for marketing stars, but why wouldn't they?

It drives up the value and the cost of free agents. This might happen if baseball had a salary cap.

Maury Brown:
I’m waiting for a six-year deal with club options for a newly born prospect to occur.

So are Nomar and Mia!

Snark aside, thank you.

too many dubious league office decisions, too many quirky drafts, too many playoff series determined by the officiating to dismiss anything out of hand

Numerous examples for each, please.