View Full Version : Stern wanted to increase the height of the basket before
hotsizzle
11-01-2006, 08:58 PM
Just talked about it on NBA shootaround. Hes insane, thenk god Red was around to talk him outta of it...who knows what Stern is up to now:confusedshrug:
didnt really say how high but he wanted to make it harder for big guys to score to help the little guys then Red addressed him and said "Look stupid, whos gonna get the rebounds"?..Stern replied with "the big guys"..then Red says "so then how are you helping the little guys?" haha
eliteballer
11-01-2006, 09:01 PM
How high?
KingLeBronJames
11-01-2006, 09:03 PM
Fire Stern now! He's drunk with power!
hotsizzle
11-01-2006, 09:03 PM
didnt really say how high but he wanted to make it harder for big guys to score to help the little guys then Red addressed him and said "Look stupid, whos gonna get the rebounds"?..Stern replied with "the big guys"..then Red says "so then how are you helping the little guys?" haha
KingLeBronJames
11-01-2006, 09:05 PM
didnt really say how high but he wanted to make it harder for big guys to score to help the little guys then Red addressed him and said "Look stupid, whos gonna get the rebounds"?..Stern replied with "the big guys"..then Red says "so then how are you helping the little guys?" haha
LOL Red was right. Stern is stupid. I'm sure he meant it too.
They should introduce Stern as a bad guy n those NBA comics they had out awhile ago. Larry Brown can be his evil sidekick, and all the referees. Dwayne Wade should be a robot created by mad man Stern.
Stern needs to be gone. He is making some dumb rules. And he is making rules and stuff to accomdate teams. Also that new rule against owners that is just for Cuban. But he says what every owner wants to say but is afraid to say. Also why change the old ball if everybody liked it. My motto is "if it aint broken, dont fix it". He is thinking all this stuff is better for the game. But its not he needs to be gone somebody takeover anybody.
Cool, you should make jokes about topics in these threads. Like when one like this pops up you should make fun of Stern, that'll get your name out there better I think.
Do you know how much NBA revenue has increased since stern became commissioner in 1984? Think about how much NBA players earn compared to non-athletes, such as your parents, and you're telling me that Stern should be fired? Currently, games are being televised on ABC, ESPN, and TNT across the entire nation, and internationally, too, and you're telling me that Stern should be fired? Stern is a legend in the business world and a vanguard of the NBA because of his work since 1984, and you're saying that he should be fired? Are you smoking crack?
Hawker
11-01-2006, 09:37 PM
yes.
eliteballer
11-01-2006, 09:39 PM
Stern just needs to handle the business end and stay the hell away from the actual game, he doesn't have any credentials when it comes to the actual sport anyway.
Kblaze8855
11-01-2006, 09:41 PM
Stern isnt the reason for the NBA blowing up i nthe 80s. Magic, Bird, and Jordan are. Hes also not the reason athletes are paid so much. The biggest contracts in sports history as of the 70s were in the NBA. Nate Archibald got by far the most money any athlete ever had and he got it in like 1973. And Kareem got more than him soon after. Hell Wilt and Russell were making more than the president in the 60s.
A steady progression isnt Sterns doing. It happened all over the sports world. KG, shaq, Arod, Mcnabb, and so on all got deals in the 100-130 million dollar range in like a 6 year period. I dont think Stern made the NFL and MLB contracts get bigger.
Stern doesnt control all marketing. There are entire divisions that handle that. he might make the final call but he isnt individually responsible. Stern doesnt exactly control TV either. Channels bid and he took the highest ones. Stern helped oversee the change from promoting teams to promoting players but the league was on its way up before him.
eliteballer
11-01-2006, 09:42 PM
http://www.sith.nl/images/nieuws/spaceballs.jpg
Someone photoshop Stern into this...he truly is Emperor Stern:roll:
you are an idiot. stern is a primary reason why the nba is so popular all around the world.
I don't care how much money he has made or his TV deals etc. Anyone doing his job with half a brain could advertise the NBA globally. Like blaze said, Magic, Larry and Jordan are responsible for the popularity of the league.
Stern is f*cking up the league now with all his bogus ideas.
They should just play damn FIBA rules and be done with it.
A steady progression isnt Sterns doing. It happened all over the sports world. KG, shaq, Arod, Mcnabb, and so on all got deals in thre 100-130 million dollar range in like a 6 year period. I dont think Stern made the NFL and MLB contracts get bigger.
Stern doesnt control all marketing. There are entire divisions that handle that. Stern doesnt control TV rights. Channels bid and he took the highest ones. Stern helped oversee the change from promoting teams ot promoting players but the league was on its way up before him.
According to your argument, NHL players' contracts should be monumental, too, but they're not.
Plus, you're right. Stern doesn't control all marketing, TV rights, and all of the other details, but he is the COMMISSIONER. In other words, he is the president, or CEO of the NBA. He is in charge of the general direction of the NBA. The people who are in charge of marketing and tv rights got their wheels rolling because of Stern. He probably hired them, and if they weren't doing their jobs properly, probably fired them and hired more competent individuals.
Saying that Stern should be fired from the NBA is like saying that Bill Gates should have been fired from Microsoft. :wtf:
Saying that Stern should be fired from the NBA is like saying that Bill Gates should have been fired from Microsoft. :wtf:
Idiot. I suppose you support George Bush as well?
TheHonestTruth
11-01-2006, 09:56 PM
I wonder why that ****er is still the commish while there are great people like Cuban who could've done a much better job.
Kblaze8855
11-01-2006, 10:03 PM
According to your argument, NHL players' contracts should be monumental, too, but they're not.
If hockey mattered in America I assume they would. Hockey is mostly a canada thing.
Plus, you're right. Stern doesn't control all marketing, TV rights, and all of the other details, but he is the COMMISSIONER. In other words, he is the president, or CEO of the NBA. He is in charge of the general direction of the NBA. The people who are in charge of marketing and tv rights got their wheels rolling because of Stern. He probably hired them, and if they weren't doing their jobs properly, probably fired them and hired more competent individuals.
Things going well while youre in charge doesnt mean youre doing a great job. Plenty of presidents have had America do fine under them with nothing notable done by them. The NBAs success has too many factors to give any one man credit. And if you had to give one man credit....its not him. Its Michael Jordan.
Saying that Stern should be fired from the NBA is like saying that Bill Gates should have been fired from Microsoft.
Bill Gates basically created microsoft and made it among the the biggest companies in the world. Stern was handed control of the 3rd biggest sport in america and led it to being....the 3rd biggest sport in america with Nascar catching up. Major difference.
Most of what he did is not **** it up when it was heading in the right direction. Which is a positive...but its far from making him the savior of the league.
I wonder why that ****er is still the commish while there are great people like Cuban who could've done a much better job.
Cuban earned his billions from selling his pet product, a video website, broadcast.com, to YAHOO.
If you check go to broadcast.com, it takes you to yahoo.com because broadcast.com turned out to be a worthless dot com bust. It is regarded as one of the worst business moves EVER made during the dot com era. In other words, Cuban got rich through luck.
qrich
11-01-2006, 10:11 PM
If it wasn't for David Stern, the NBA might not exist.
why is he famous?
David Stern is considered the best sports executive working today. He transformed the NBA as commissioner from a league on the verge of bankruptcy into a profitable, global brand through smart marketing and shrewd financial innovations like the salary cap.
But lately, he has been killing the game, someone take over as Comish and let Stern just handle the business end of it.
MaxFly
11-01-2006, 10:15 PM
Cuban earned his billions from selling his pet product, a video website, broadcast.com, to YAHOO.
If you check go to broadcast.com, it takes you to yahoo.com because broadcast.com turned out to be a worthless dot com bust. It is regarded as one of the worst business moves EVER made during the dot com era. In other words, Cuban got rich through luck.
Not from my understanding, and wikipedia further backs me up on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com
Broadcast.com was a web radio company founded as "AudioNet" in 1995 by Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner.
The company had unassuming beginnings; it was initially co-founded by Mark Cuban as a way to have access to basketball games of his alma mater, Indiana University. The initial setup involved picking up signals from Dallas radio station, KLIF in Cuban's bedroom and broadcasting them to home computers via the Internet.
As the company grew, AudioNet expanded from mainly broadcasting sporting events to broadcasting presidential conventions and many other events.
In May of 1998, AudioNet renamed itself Broadcast.com and on July 17, 1998, Broadcast.com had their initial public offering, setting (at the time) a one-day record for IPOs by rising almost 250% percent from its opening price. The stock closed up at $62.75 per share from their initial trading at $18 per share.
The record IPO made instant financial successes out of the company's employees through stock options, making 100 employees millionaires on paper (although most of them were unable to exercise their options and sell their shares before the stock price dropped) and founders Cuban and Wagner billionaires.
In April 1999, Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo! for $5.7 billion in stock and became Yahoo! Broadcast Solutions. Over the next few years Yahoo! split the services previously offered by Broadcast.com into separate services, Yahoo! Launchcast for music and Yahoo! Platinum for video entertainment. Yahoo! Platinum has since been discontinued, its functionality being offered as part of two pay services, AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet and Yahoo! Plus.
As of 2006, neither broadcast.com nor broadcast.yahoo.com are distinct web addresses; both simply redirect to yahoo.com.
KBlaze, you make good videos, but it is obvious, that you are not an MBA-wielding executive who is in a deserved position to criticize the commissioner of the NBA.
Not from my understanding, and wikipedia further backs me up on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com
Um, why don't you try reading what Wikipedia had to say before using it to dispute what I said. :roll:
KBlaze, you make good videos, but it is obvious, that you are not an MBA-wielding executive who is in a deserved position to criticize the commissioner of the NBA.
asd, you make readable posts, but it is obvious, that you are not an NBA fan who is capable of making a post that makes anycommon sense. Yo uare hardly in the position to criticise anybody on this board.
You guys are saying that Stern should be fired over something that he did NOT end up doing, neglecting the success that the NBA has experienced under his deft management. What are your other reasons as to why he should be fired? So he wants a new ball? Does it affect business? Does it affect you as a fan? Please...
-Hand checking rules
-New ball
-Time out lengths created to suit advertisement breaks
-Strict technicals for even rolling your eyes at a referee
-Dress code
-Some may even think the shorts length is debatable (personally I think long shorts are for thugs)
Continuing this argument with you is like arguing with the wall in front of me. In the end, nobody wins. So, I will stop.
True words of a loser.
Kblaze8855
11-01-2006, 10:41 PM
KBlaze, you make good videos, but it is obvious, that you are not an MBA-wielding executive who is in a deserved position to criticize the commissioner of the NBA.
So an "executive" has a better idea about the direction of the league than a lifelong fan?
Please. Common sense alone shows Stern didnt do much of what you said. You claim we should look at how much players make in comparison to say...our parents...as evidence of Sterns doings. When a decade before Stern took over NBA players had the biggest contracts in the history of the world for athletes. And top NBA guys made more than 99.99% of america in the late 60s.
You tell us to look at the fact that the NBA is on all these channels. Guess what? A lot of the media outlets that exist today didnt exist in the 70s and 80s before stern and those that did were not nearly as major. Stern didnt create ESPN or make it cover all these leagues. ESPN has on NBA, Tennis, NFL, MLB, Nascar, and so on. Stern didnt do that. Any commish would get in on it. Whats some guy gonna say? "Oh no...you can cover the rest of sports...I want the NBA poorly covered"? Its a sports network. Stern cant be given credit for the NBA not being on TNT before him. TNT didnt exist until 1988.
Stern didnt invent international media and satellite coverage overseas. The Dream team, Sabonis, Drazen, and so on have as much to do with basketball blowing up all over the world. Stern didnt create the dream team either. Sabonis killing college kids in 88 made them needed. Fiba made a rule change to allow pros. he might have been involved but he sure as hell didnt create interest in basketball all over the world. baseball is more international than its ever been. football is more international than its ever been. soccer has always been all over. SPORTS IN GENERAL have spread all over the world with the media age and more resources.
Youre giving this guy credit for **** he had zero to do with nd tell me I dont know enough of the league to criticize the commissioner? I know the NBA had issues holding it back before stern many of which went away without him. I know networks popped up all over the world and the computer/media age came about making all sports more interntational. I know NBA players made more than any other athletes in the 70s and baseball and the NFLs contracts rose along with the NBAs totally independant of Stern.
I know I dont need to be an "executive" to have common sense and see that Stern has not taken the league beyond its spot as of the mid 80s(3rd in america) and if it did raise it wasnt because of him. If it passed boxing he didnt do it. the Lack of great boxing/heavyweights did it. NBA has not passed baseball and is being caught by Nascar.
Stern in 20 years is getting credit for things done all over the sports world. Players being more well known worldwide and getting more money. Both started before him and go on in other sports he cant control. The NBA has not moved past any major American sport that was ahead of it when he took over and has not made one major advancment that cant be tied to either the players ability or the advancments in the media/cable neither of which he did.
I dont need to be an "MBA-wielding executive" to see the obvious. But I do have a business degree. And it gives me no information on this issue that being an observant fan doesnt. You disagree? Fine. But you sure arent telling me anything to suggest im wrong. Least of all my lack of being an "MBA-wielding executive".
MaxFly
11-01-2006, 10:46 PM
Um, why don't you try reading what Wikipedia had to say before using it to dispute what I said. :roll:
Yahoo broke broadcast.com into seperate services, Yahoo! Launch being one of them. Yahoo! launch is certainly not a bust and is in fact one of yahoo's better known and more successful services. It's obvious that broadcast.com benefited Yahoo! a great deal.
NEW BALL, HE SAYS! :roll:
-does having a new ball affect you being a fan of the NBA? do you say, "damn that new ball! I just want to stop watching now!"
Watching low percentage games sucks
Time out lengths created to suit advertisement breaks
-more money for the nba, and Stern should be fired because the NBA earns more money?
No, Stern should try and keep the game flowing for purists. I usually tape games, hide fro many source of score update, and watch the game fast forwarding ads.
Strict technicals for even rolling your eyes at a referee
-Again, are you, now, not a fan of the NBA because of this rule?
Again it does deter me fro mwatching games. Having the best players ejected for rolling their eyes is stupid.
Dress code
and again!
You are an idiot. I never argued that Stern would make me stop watching NBA, I'm a basketball fan, but he is taking the enjoyment out of the game, and trying to really leave his mark.
naptown
11-01-2006, 10:49 PM
Um, why don't you try reading what Wikipedia had to say before using it to dispute what I said. :roll:
Dude, did you not read that Cuban sold a company that is used by millions daily? They just split it up into seperate companies. It was a VERY successful business before he sold it and is even more successful today.
Most of what he did is not **** it up when it was heading in the right direction. Which is a positive...but its far from making him the savior of the league.
I don't know if you read the other guy's earlier post, but the NBA was losing money and going broke when Stern became commissioner of the NBA. Like I said earlier, Stern was a primary reason behind the NBA's financial success. Therefore, all that writing that you just did to prove your point is void.
But hey, maybe you knew that before you started writing and just wrote that essay to impress me with your grammar.
Dude, did you not read that Cuban sold a company that is used by millions daily? They just split it up into seperate companies. It was a VERY successful business before he sold it and is even more successful today.
You just made that last part up. Broadcast.com was the 90's version of YouTube. Broadcast.com, which can no longer be found, was sold for $5.7 Bil. YouTube was sold for $1.65 Bil. Yahoo could have purchased multiple Youtubes with that money. In fact, Cuban is envy with green over the success of Youtube, especially because of the failure of Broadcast.com. If you don't believe me, check out his blog at blogmaverick.com. Youtube is the only thing he talks about these days.
But hey, maybe you knew that before you started writing and just wrote that essay to impress me with your grammar.
Breaking news!!!!!!!!
New NBA season brings new stupider posters to ISH.
In related news, Ced uses the ignore function on asd.
Kblaze8855
11-01-2006, 11:01 PM
I don't know if you read the other guy's earlier post, but the NBA was losing money and going broke when Stern became commissioner of the NBA. Like I said earlier, Stern was a primary reason behind the NBA's financial success. Therefore, all that writing that you just did to prove your point is void.
Giving David Stern credit for saving the league because he was the commish during the media boom of the 80s and 90s is like giving Roosevelt full credit for ending the great depression. Or giving a movie studio president credit for the SciFi movie explosion because his studio helped make Star Wars.
Youre taking the work of thousands of players and people who created the media age and disregarding them for the sake of David Stern because hteir actions changed modern sports. David Stern cant be given credit for more NBA coverage when networks to cover it as they do now didnt EXIST before him. He cant be given credit for players making money when they made more than anyone in the 70s before him. He cant be given credit for being in charge when Magic, Bird, and MJ came along. He cant be given credit for nike spending billions to shove players images down our throats to sell shoes.
David Stern saving the NBA is a belief that comes from numbers with no consideration being given to the situation that created them.
MaxFly
11-01-2006, 11:08 PM
You just made that last part up. Broadcast.com was the 90's version of YouTube. Broadcast.com, which can no longer be found, was sold for $5.7 Bil. YouTube was sold for $1.65 Bil. Yahoo could have purchased multiple Youtubes with that money. In fact, Cuban is envy with green over the success of Youtube, especially because of the failure of Broadcast.com. If you don't believe me, check out his blog at blogmaverick.com. Youtube is the only thing he talks about these days.
Again, Broadcast.com did not fail. Your understanding is faulty. Broadcast.com essensially became Launch.com or rather, Yahoo! Launch. Moreover, Launch has been very successful for Yahoo and is projected to continue to be successful, meaning that the aquisition of Broadcast.com was beneficial for Yahoo.
I don't think that Cuban is "green with envy," and he's certainly not "envy with green." As you yourself have admitted, YouTube sold for 1.65 billion... Broadcast.com sold for much more... If Cuban could do it all over and had a choice between the two, I'd think he'd pick his original company and the deal with Yahoo.
Giving David Stern credit for saving the league because he was the commish during the media boom of the 80s and 90s is like giving Roosevelt full credit for ending the great depression. Or giving a movie studio president credit for the SciFi movie explosion because his studio helped make Star Wars.
Youre taking the work of thousands of players and people who created the media age and disregarding them for the sake of David Stern because hteir actions changed modern sports. David Stern cant be given credit for more NBA coverage when networks to cover it as they do now didnt EXIST before him. He cant be given credit for players making money when they made more than anyone in the 70s before him. He cant be given credit for being in charge when Magic, Bird, and MJ came along. He cant be given credit for nike spending billions to shove players images down our throats to sell shoes.
David Stern saving the NBA is a belief that comes from numbers with no consideration being given to the situation that created them.
I'm not saying that Stern didn't ride the coattails Bird, Magic, and Jordan. Also, I'm not saying that David Stern invented the television.
What I am saying is that with the aid of his leadership, the NBA has experienced tremendous financial success, and he should not be fired.
-a new ball
-dress code
-higher basket
When it comes to firing the commissioner of the NBA, this type of reasoning is trivial and in no way should be held in higher light than the NBA's monumental revenues.
Again, Broadcast.com did not fail. Your understanding is faulty. Broadcast.com essensially became Launch.com or rather, Yahoo! Launch. Moreover, Launch has been very successful for Yahoo and is projected to continue to be successful, meaning that the aquisition of Broadcast.com was beneficial for Yahoo.
I don't think that Cuban is "green with envy," and he's certainly not "envy with green." As you yourself have admitted, YouTube sold for 1.65 billion... Broadcast.com sold for much more... If Cuban could do it all over and had a choice between the two, I'd think he'd pick his original company and the deal with Yahoo.
Of course Cuban would make that deal all over again. He sold it to YAHOO for over $5 Bil. dollars. With that money, YAHOO could have purchased multiple YouTube dot coms. You fail to see the point. Why continue?
MaxFly
11-01-2006, 11:14 PM
David Stern saving the NBA is a belief that comes from numbers with no consideration being given to the situation that created them.
Exactly... simply put, the players (especially Jordan, Magic, Bird, and others) were primarily responsible for the success of the league. Anyone that believes that Stern deserves more credit than the players must somehow be related to him. Moreover, there is more to player marketing than that done by the NBA... you have the sneaker market and product endorsements, both serving to provide players with more exposure...
-a new ball
-dress code
-higher basket
When it comes to firing the commissioner of the NBA, this type of reasoning is trivial and in no way should be held in higher light than the NBA's monumental revenues.
A higher basket trivial?
Every basketball player i nthe world plays on a 10' hoop, but the NBA are going to play on a higher one? P-lease! :no:
Kblaze8855
11-01-2006, 11:19 PM
Well I never said he should be fired. Just that the NBA doing well isnt because of him. I dont think hes a great commish. And he sure as hell didnt save the NBA. But hes done little to damage the league in a major way. But if you remove David Stern and replace him with a pineapple over the last 20 years the NBA wouldnt have just dissolved. The commish is the most overrated position in most leagues. They have as much to do with the existance of the league as the President does with the existance of america. Sure they make some calls...but the calls would get made with or without them.
"On no! A higher basket. The NBA is going down the drain now. Stern should be fired!"
Cry me a river..
You are insane. Why should the NBA have a totally different game to what the rest of the world plays?
It would have been hilarious if it did happen. NBA players would suck at FIBA internationals. I can just see all the kids that are NBA hopefuls getting out the ladders to put their garage basketball hoop up higher. :rollingeyes:
Regardless of the new ball, dress code, or hand-checking rules, the current Cavs-Wizard game is pretty damn exciting.
SomeBunghole
11-01-2006, 11:21 PM
NEW BALL, HE SAYS! :roll:
-does having a new ball affect you being a fan of the NBA? do you say, "damn that new ball! I just want to stop watching now!"
No, but it's a symptom of a larger problem, a league that sees fans only as cash cows. Everyone and their mom knows the new ball was created for one reason, and one reason only. Merchandising. And it bothers me. It bothers me more because they won't admit it. It also bothers me because I am convinced this will lead to more new balls in years to come.
FIFA, the international soccer federation has been doing it for years. Every major tournament, that is every 2 years, they put out a new official soccer ball. Every time, they change the design slightly, tout the great improvements, and then charge you 50 bucks for an official ball. Most of the time, it's the same freaking ball, although this year, it was actually worse as they made it more slippery and goalies had trouble catching it.
All of this, of course, is to milk the cash cow that is their fanbase. You just have to wonder if the market will ever be oversaturated and what happens then. What happens when you can no longer convince people to buy more jerseys, League Passes, and other merchandise and players' contracts still get bigger and bigger? The same thing as in soccer, they'll jack up the prices. So when you have to pay a 100 bucks for the ****tiest seats at the Rose Garden, you can thank Stern and his brilliant marketing ideas.
Regardless of the new ball, dress code, or hand-checking rules, the current Cavs-Wizard game is pretty damn exciting.
But playing under rules that are not beneficial for the development of fundamental basketball.
Stern has tried to over glamorise a sport that was glamorise enough. He's sees things like: dunks, and high points out puts as good things, so he changes the rules to suit.
Kobe4life
11-01-2006, 11:26 PM
this forum has some lame ads
No, but it's a symptom of a larger problem, a league that sees fans only as cash cows. Everyone and their mom knows the new ball was created for one reason, and one reason only. Merchandising. And it bothers me. It bothers me more because they won't admit it. It also bothers me because I am convinced this will lead to more new balls in years to come.
FIFA, the international soccer federation has been doing it for years. Every major tournament, that is every 2 years, they put out a new official soccer ball. Every time, they change the design slightly, tout the great improvements, and then charge you 50 bucks for an official ball. Most of the time, it's the same freaking ball, although this year, it was actually worse as they made it more slippery and goalies had trouble catching it.
All of this, of course, is to milk the cash cow that is their fanbase. You just have to wonder if the market will ever be oversaturated and what happens then. What happens when you can no longer convince people to buy more jerseys, League Passes, and other merchandise and players' contracts still get bigger and bigger? The same thing as in soccer, they'll jack up the prices. So when you have to pay a 100 bucks for the ****tiest seats at the Rose Garden, you can thank Stern and his brilliant marketing ideas.
Ok, I see your point. The new ball will add to your costs, and positive gain is only experienced by the NBA.
However, Stern should not be concerned with your financial situation, only the NBAs. When you fork over more money to the NBA, Stern is elated, and that's how it is in corporate America. When the NBA starts losing money, then Stern should be fired.
If you're all so dissatisfied with Stern's rule over the NBA, write a letter to the NBA stating that you're gonna stop watching NBA games until he is removed.
When you fork over more money to the NBA, Stern is elated, and that's how it is in corporate America. When the NBA starts losing money, then Stern should be fired.
If you think like that you're not a real basketball fan, and you should find yourself a new hobbie. Seeing you're so interested in marketing, change management and business ethics, you should go post at www.nationalbusinessreview.com
If you're all so dissatisfied with Stern's rule over the NBA, write a letter to the NBA stating that you're gonna stop watching NBA games until he is removed.
You don't get the point. You are stupid.
MaxFly
11-01-2006, 11:34 PM
Of course Cuban would make that deal all over again. He sold it to YAHOO for over $5 Bil. dollars. With that money, YAHOO could have purchased multiple YouTube dot coms. You fail to see the point. Why continue?
I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the history of web based video. When Cuban sold broadcast.com to Yahoo!, the technologies (internet radio and web video) were still relatively novel. As a result, the asking price for such a technology would naturally be high. It was a unique techology at the time. That's how the free market works. Yahoo! Launch was one of the influential forces behind digital video online, and as the service became more popular, more and more online video began to pop up. With the advent of Macromedia's (now Adobe's) Flash Video, online video became even more widespread and has become a normal, integral and almost seemless part of the internet experience. Google has a video service, youtube as well... NBC and MSNBC have videos of their programs available online... Comedy Central has several segments of their programs online... The Daily Show and Colbert Report especially. Now that video has become more common online, the asking price for something like YouTube won't be as high as it would have been 8 years ago. Now while the service is rather new... allowing people to upload their video to a site that automatically converts the video to flash for easy viewing... the idea of online video is not... This is why broadcast.com sold for so much.
If a service like Youtube were available at the time Yahoo! bought Broadcast.com, it would have sold for a lot more than Broadcast.com did... first, because of the relatively novel use of internet video, and second, because it is a technology that allows someone to upload video and have the program convert their video and present it online.
Do you fail to see the correlation between Stern and business, and marketing? Do you not understand that this entire post is about Commissioner Stern?
And Commissioner Stern is the commissioner of the NBA. The "B" stands for Basketball, not Business.
Where's LakerRaider when you need him to spell it out? Well I guess I can do it:
National Basketball Association
Have you noticed nobody is backing your argument?
"You are stupid~" Wah, wah~
:roll:
It's not long before oyu have some sort of stupid title under your name, the defining moment of becoming an idiot at ISH
without the business, you wouldn't be able to watch basketball games on tv, buy basketball gear, and etc...
Yes the two are linked within the role of commissioner, but a good commissioner would be looking for the best of basketball and it's followers, not "how to make the most money".
Creating the best basketball league possible would in itself generate more interest in the NBA, instead of creating the wrong type of interest, e.g. ESPN highlights and merchandising.
SomeBunghole
11-01-2006, 11:48 PM
Ok, I see your point. The new ball will add to your costs, and positive gain is only experienced by the NBA.
However, Stern should not be concerned with your financial situation, only the NBAs. When you fork over more money to the NBA, Stern is elated, and that's how it is in corporate America. When the NBA starts losing money, then Stern should be fired.
As I said, the market for the NBA is not limitless. What happens when that limit is reached? You think you'll be able to convince spoiled ghetto kids masquarading as NBA players that they should take a pay cut?
unlike you, I don't care about the title under 'asd.' have concerns over the title on my business card. I have worked on websites larger than ISH. I could slap some RSS feeds and a VBulletin forum up and make another ISH in less than one weekend.
Well seeing you're not really a fan of basketball anyway, I suggest you go make your own website and see how much interest you can gather for it.
Speaking for all of ISH here, this is a website of basketball purists, not monopolistic David Stern groupies. You would be better off posting elsewhere, you've been spanked numerous times in this thread, but fail to see the error in your ways. Somebody that has "tunnel-vision" usually isn't very successful in business, so I encourage you to go start your own website. Tell me when you have it made so I can go laugh at you.
As I said, the market for the NBA is not limitless. What happens when that limit is reached? You think you'll be able to convince spoiled ghetto kids masquarading as NBA players that they should take a pay cut?
When that limit is reached, the business is forced to make necessary changes. Are you saying that the limit has been reached? Are you and the majority of all the fans writing your letters to the NBA, and no longer watching games until Stern is removed?
MaxFly
11-01-2006, 11:51 PM
ASD, just waiting for you to respond to my post concerning online video.
so, are you saying that the league should be a communist league? compared to the commissioner, the fans get equal say?
No, I'm saying the commissioner's job should be to look after the NBA's business interests without hurting the image of the league, or the integrity of the game.
When that limit is reached, the business is forced to make necessary changes. Are you saying that the limit has been reached? Are you and the majority of all the fans writing your letters to the NBA, and no longer watching games until Stern is removed?
At the end of the day I care more about watching basketball than going to extreme measures of writing to the league. You don't really seem to understand how to have your cake and eat it. You can watch NBA games and be anti-Stern. You can also support the war on teror and be anti-Bush.
The limits of your intelligence are of more concern to me than the limits of the NBA.
ASD, just waiting for you to respond to my post concerning online video.
What I don't like are the comparisons to Yahoo's Broadcast.com purchase.
"I mean honestly....how many people do you know whom actually used Broadcast.com. Compare to that to how many people you know who use YouTube.
The two aren't even remotely comparable. Not to mention they were entirely different business models. One simply distributed established content. The other allows the user to actually distribute their own content."
this argument has been made already...check out the link..
http://digg.com/tech_news/Mark_Cuban_Only_a_moron_would_buy_YouTub
"This coming from the guy who started Broadcast.com and sold it to Yahoo, right. A little p*nis envy, eh."
"I am tired to death of Mark Cuban using the billions he made off a terrible mistake by Yahoo! to purchase self-importance. At least most of us who made money off the dot com boom can put it in perspective."
Should I keep going?
ASD, just waiting for you to respond to my post concerning online video.
waiting for your response, MaxFly...
SomeBunghole
11-02-2006, 12:08 AM
When that limit is reached, the business is forced to make necessary changes. Are you saying that the limit has been reached? Are you and the majority of all the fans writing your letters to the NBA, and no longer watching games until Stern is removed?
No, I'm saying that the league might face problems unforseen. Of course the limit has not been reached yet, but do you believe that the salaries can just keep growing forever? And it's not like they follow the pace of the economic growth of the country/society. Every year the salary cap increases and every year, players can expect more money for the same work. This can't go on forever.
The NBA is currently riding a wave of popularity that started in the late 80s. Before that, very few games were televised and NBA teams themselves often found out things like which team they would play in the second round of playoffs the day after an actual game. Then over a period of a few years to about a decade, the NBA is everywhere. You can now see every game imaginable, curtesy of the League Pass. Except that, like me, I think a lot of people realize they don't really want to see every game imaginable. When I first got the League Pass 3 seasons ago, I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The first week of that season, I watched something like 2-3 games a night. And then like Halloween candy, I had too much of it and it made me sick. Then I realized that all you needed really was TNT, ESPN and the local FSN affiliate that covers your team. You got all the games you need there, and you pay less. Of course, I still have the League Pass since I was never actually paying for it, but the point stands. The novelty of watching bad teams play each other wears off pretty fast.
I remember a few weeks ago, there was a thread about a Euro division in the NBA. With the amount of success, and possible future success, that the NBA is experiencing with Stern at the helm, he should be removed?
I say, don't fix it if it ain't broke.
Even with all the new rules that Stern is putting into place, all this controversy and attention is brought to the NBA, as a result. Shoot, we're arguing about it right now. Do you think that this is bad for the NBA?
I remember a few weeks ago, there was a thread about a Euro division in the NBA. With the amount of success, and possible future success, that the NBA is experiencing with Stern at the helm, he should be removed?
I say, don't fix it if it ain't broke.
Having a Euro NBA is a terrible idea. Travel? I don't think anybody in the NBA wants to do that other than Stern.
Stern just needs to handle the business end and stay the hell away from the actual game, he doesn't have any credentials when it comes to the actual sport anyway.
sounds good to me. he's a geek.
shoot, I think it's bad for the players, too, but a Euro NBA division wouldn't pour more money into Stern's, and the NBA's, pockets?
More money for Stern and the NBA isn't in the NBA's interest? Hm, you stumped me
Your problem again. You say you don't like the idea of NBA Europe, but you go on to defend it saying, "more money.... isn't it in the NBA's interest?"
No it's not if the players and fans aren't happy.
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 12:32 AM
What I don't like are the comparisons to Yahoo's Broadcast.com purchase.
"I mean honestly....how many people do you know whom actually used Broadcast.com. Compare to that to how many people you know who use YouTube.
The two aren't even remotely comparable. Not to mention they were entirely different business models. One simply distributed established content. The other allows the user to actually distribute their own content."
You made the mistake of calling broadcast.com "a worthless dot com bust" when in actuality, if you look at the proliferation of web video, and the success of broadcast.com's offshoot under Yahoo!, Yahoo! Launch, broadcast.com was ultimately anything but a "worthless dot com bust." Even in an age where there are a myriad of other video services, broadcast.com still thrives as Yahoo! Launch.
this argument has been made already...check out the link..
http://digg.com/tech_news/Mark_Cuban_Only_a_moron_would_buy_YouTub
"This coming from the guy who started Broadcast.com and sold it to Yahoo, right. A little p*nis envy, eh."
I've gone on record as disagreeing with Cuban's assessment of YouTube. We had a thread about these very comments on digg sometime back. Looking at your post count, I'm not sure you were around. I believe that YouTube can be successful in the longterm if a number if provisions are met.
But though I disagree with Cuban's assessment, I stop short at ascribing motivation to his comments. I don't believe that he's envious as you said... That's illogical. Broadcast.com and Yahoo!'s purchase of it is partly responsible for the proliferation of online video, and Cuban made more money off of Broadcast.com than the creators of YouTube will make from YouTube.
"I am tired to death of Mark Cuban using the billions he made off a terrible mistake by Yahoo! to purchase self-importance. At least most of us who made money off the dot com boom can put it in perspective."
Again, Yahoo! did not make a mistake in purchasing broadcast.com... Without broadcast.com, they wouldn't have Launch... and Launch is one of their more successful services. In fact, Launch was one of the things that kept Yahoo afloat when Google took over the search engine market and Yahoo! began to flounder. Those at Yahoo! are quite happy that they purchased broadcast.com, and would do it again.
Should I keep going?
Again, Yahoo! did not make a mistake in purchasing broadcast.com... Without broadcast.com, they wouldn't have Launch... and Launch is one of their more successful services. In fact, Launch was one of the things that kept Yahoo afloat when Google took over the search engine market and Yahoo! began to flounder. Those at Yahoo! are quite happy that they purchased broadcast.com, and would do it again.
Should I keep going?
Not a mistake? If Yahoo did not make a mistake in purchasing broadcast.com, why did Yahoo try to purchase Youtube? They provide the same media-related services.... hmmm...
Also,
Last time I searched for Video, I went to Youtube, not Yahoo Launch. Shoot, I'll see a Google Video before I see a video on Launch.
When broadcast.com was sold for over $5 bil, and Youtube was sold for $1.75 bil, you really believe that Yahoo doesn't regret that move? Do you want to go into a thorough analysis?
Those at Yahoo! are quite happy that they purchased broadcast.com, and would do it again.
Should I keep going?
In the United States, Yahoo's cash cows are Yahoo mail and Yahoo news, which is number 2 in online news. When it comes to video, Yahoo doesn't come close to Youtube.
Should I keep going?
Y2Gezee
11-02-2006, 12:50 AM
Stern should be fired. He used to be a great GM, until this whole brawl thing. Now he's just showing his ass. He's made so many stupid rules in the past 2 years it's ridiculous. He is truly drunk with power. He's like a Jewish Nazi
I don't believe that he's envious as you said... That's illogical. Broadcast.com and Yahoo!'s purchase of it is partly responsible for the proliferation of online video, and Cuban made more money off of Broadcast.com than the creators of YouTube will make from YouTube.
Should I keep going?
Broadcast dot com's short sighted business model protected it from copyright holders.
As a result, it didn't have nearly the same number of users as Youtube has now, yet it was bought for more than two times the price of Youtube.
Stern should be fired. He used to be a great GM, until this whole brawl thing. Now he's just showing his ass. He's made so many stupid rules in the past 2 years it's ridiculous. He is truly drunk with power. He's like a Jewish Nazi
when the media and the fans make a big fuss about his rules, it brings more attention to the NBA. You really think that everything Stern does isn't pre-planned for marketing purposes?
shoot, last night, on tnt, i watched a 15 minute segment on the controversy of the new ball alone...
a friggin' ball!
last year, it was over shirts w/collars!
when you guys argue about having Stern removed, do you think that this upsets Stern, or could Stern actually approve of the controversy?
controversy adds an an element of interest to the game...
Y2Gezee
11-02-2006, 01:21 AM
Yeah the controversies add media attention to the game. However, this quick technical thing is going to hurt the game.
I've seen over the past 2 days people freakin shrug their arms in manner of asking why and been T'd up. I saw the Sheed stuff 2night, he deserved it. But I just saw livingston walking away and shrug his arms, Im sure he wasn' t cursing or anything, and he was T'd up. This is bull****
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 01:32 AM
Not a mistake? If Yahoo did not make a mistake in purchasing broadcast.com, why did Yahoo try to purchase Youtube? They provide the same media-related services.... hmmm...
Perhaps they want to corner the market. I would do the same thing. If I already own one type of multimedia service, why not own another service that functions differently and opens up even more options for my company and for my users... I'd expand Yahoo! Launch, or create another offshoot. As it stands, YouTube has all of the hardware and software in place, and it would be easy for a company like Yahoo! to build upon that and have the option of user created and uploaded media as well as the media Yahoo! features on Launch... that's just smart business. Also, you just happen to head off competition in the process.
Also,
Last time I searched for Video, I went to Youtube, not Yahoo Launch. Shoot, I'll see a Google Video before I see a video on Launch.
That's your preference, but Launch has its fair share of users and the service has been very successful and predates most other sites that offer online video. Moreover, Launch is still going strong. YouTube will of course be more successful because it is more user oriented... People can upload and share their own videos and have others comment. But before youtube really gained momentum a year ago, I highly doubt that you were going there to search for video. However, prior to youtube, most people who wanted to catch the latest music videos or a few old videos went to Launch, and many still use the service.
When broadcast.com was sold for over $5 bil, and Youtube was sold for $1.75 bil, you really believe that Yahoo doesn't regret that move? Do you want to go into a thorough analysis?
You need to understand the time difference. I explained this earlier. Broadcast.com was aquired years ago when online video was still relatively new. The price was going to be high... that's the nature of the market... New technology and software will be more expensive. However, Yahoo! benefited in that they were among the few to have this new technology and because of that, were able to attract many, many users, effectively making back the money they spent on that investment years ago... As of now, because of the adds they run before their videos, they're still making a lot of money on the service.
If Yahoo had waited and had not bought broadcast.com, they would not have Launch right now, and would not have had it for the lenghth of time it's been popular and making them money. By now, it's paid for itself and more. Yahoo wouldn't be as popular, internet video wouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is now, and the creators of YouTube may have very well been selling YouTube at a greater expense to the purchasing company. There are a number of dynamics involved, but broadcast.com was a timely purchace for Yahoo! and was well worth the price.
It's like if a company bought a certain brand of computer 2 years ago... By now, that brand of computer will be far less expensive... but you also have to factor in the benefits in productity from the initial purchase to the present. If the benefits offset the decrease in price, it was a good purchase. This is the case with Yahoo! Launch. The benefits the service has provided to Yahoo! far outweigh the difference between the cost of broadcast.com and You Tube over the amount of time Launch has existed.
Perhaps they want to corner the market. I would do the same thing. If I already own one type of multimedia service, why not own another service that functions differently and opens up even more options for my company and for my users... I'd expand Yahoo! Launch, or create another offshoot. As it stands, YouTube has all of the hardware and software in place, and it would be easy for a company like Yahoo! to build upon that and have the option of user created and uploaded media as well as the media Yahoo! features on Launch... that's just smart business. Also, you just happen to head off competition in the process.
That's your preference, but Launch has its fair share of users and the service has been very successful and predates most other sites that offer online video. Moreover, Launch is still going strong. YouTube will of course be more successful because it is more user oriented... People can upload and share their own videos and have others comment. But before youtube really gained momentum a year ago, I highly doubt that you were going there to search for video. However, prior to youtube, most people who wanted to catch the latest music videos or a few old videos went to Launch, and many still use the service.
You need to understand the time difference. I explained this earlier. Broadcast.com was aquired years ago when online video was still relatively new. The price was going to be high... that's the nature of the market... New technology and software will be more expensive. However, Yahoo! benefited in that they were among the few to have this new technology and because of that, were able to attract many, many users, effectively making back the money they spent on that investment years ago... As of now, because of the adds they run before their videos, they're still making a lot of money on the service.
If Yahoo had waited and had not bought broadcast.com, they would not have Launch right now, and would not have had it for the lenghth of time it's been popular and making them money. By now, it's paid for itself and more. Yahoo wouldn't be as popular, internet video wouldn't be as ubiquitous as it is now, and the creators of YouTube may have very well been selling YouTube at a greater expense to the purchasing company. There are a number of dynamics involved, but broadcast.com was a timely purchace for Yahoo! and was well worth the price.
It's like if a company bought a certain brand of computer 2 years ago... By now, that brand of computer will be far less expensive... but you also have to factor in the benefits in productity from the initial purchase to the present. If the benefits offset the decrease in price, it was a good purchase. This is the case with Yahoo! Launch. The benefits the service has provided to Yahoo! far outweigh the difference between the cost of broadcast.com and You Tube over the amount of time Launch has existed.
cuban is not green with envy? please. cuban called google "moronic" for purchasing youtube at $1.65 bil. does this mean that cuban concedes that yahoo was being three times more moronic for purchasing broadcast at over $5 billion? or is there a sufficient time-related reason with this, too?
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 01:46 AM
In the United States, Yahoo's cash cows are Yahoo mail and Yahoo news, which is number 2 in online news. When it comes to video, Yahoo doesn't come close to Youtube.
Should I keep going?
Prior to the advent of youtube, which is only a little over a year old, Launch was the place for online music videos. YouTube has taken over, and rightfully so, because of how useable it is, but YouTube has been burning through venture capital and really hasn't been making money. Not too long ago, when it came to video, not only didn't YouTube come close, it didn't exist. It makes no sense to wait for a technology that you don't know will come into existence, and even though hindsight is 20/20, Yahoo! would still buy broadcast.com for the benefits it has provided Yahoo! (in the form of Yahoo! Launch) over the years. It's just smart business. The benefits Launch has provided Yahoo far outweight the price of broadcast.com as well as the drawback of buying YouTube now and not having Launch for all those years.
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 01:47 AM
Broadcast dot com's short sighted business model protected it from copyright holders.
As a result, it didn't have nearly the same number of users as Youtube has now, yet it was bought for more than two times the price of Youtube.
How long ago was broadcast.com bought?
YouTube has taken over, and rightfully so, because of how useable it is, but
Then, why would Cuban call Google "moronic" for purchasing YouTube?
YouTube has been burning through venture capital and really hasn't been making money.
yea, the amount of venture capital that they spent to keep their servers running for a year really compares to the amount that Google paid them
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 01:53 AM
cuban is not green with envy? please. cuban called google "moronic" for purchasing youtube at $1.65 bil. does this mean that cuban concedes that yahoo was being three times more moronic for purchasing broadcast at over $5 billion? or is there a sufficient time-related reason with this, too?
Cuban's comments were related to copyright infingement problems... As it stands, he was correct in that regard. A company that bought YouTube and didn't work to eliminate copyright infringments would be in danger of large lawsuits. The problem with his argument is that no company would be that stupid. The first thing they would do is modify the service, work with distributors to allow use of their video, and remove video that violated copyright law. YouTube has been doing that a lot lately. Yahoo! wasn't sued by anyone when they bought broadcast.com... They modified the service to distrubute licensed multimedia, and then made tons of money running ads with that media...
btw, the amount that Youtube raised in venture capital is $11.5 million, which is less than 1 percent of the amount they received from google
Cuban's comments were related to copyright infingement problems... As it stands, he was correct in that regard. A company that bought YouTube and didn't work to eliminate copyright infringments would be in danger of large lawsuits. The problem with his argument is that no company would be that stupid. The first thing they would do is modify the service, work with distributors to allow use of their video, and remove video that violated copyright law. YouTube has been doing that a lot lately. Yahoo! wasn't sued by anyone when they bought broadcast.com... They modified the service to distrubute licensed multimedia, and then made tons of money running ads with that media...
cuban knew about google's capabilities with adsense..
during the past week, YouTube was told to take comedy central videos off of their servers. a couple of days later, Google made some profit-sharing deals, and comedy central material is back on youtube.
do you agree with cuban in his statement about the "moronic" purchase? do you think that Cuban has better decisive judgment than Google?
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 02:02 AM
Then, why would Cuban call Google "moronic" for purchasing YouTube?
Again, I don't agree with Cuban's assessment because I don't believe that he has considered all of the possibilities, but it doesn't strike me as envious considering how illogical that emotion would be under these circumstances. I think he's a loudmouth at times who looks for things to rant about, but envy... no.
yea, the amount of venture capital that they spent to keep their servers running for a year really compares to the amount that Google paid them
And this is why it is illogical for Cuban to be envious. He has done so much better than the guys at YouTube though his service wasn't as advanced, he didn't spend as much money as they did, nor have his site gain the type of fame as theirs. The reason he made so much money and deserved it was that he did it at a time when that type of service and technology was still new and more valuable than it is now.
Again, I don't agree with Cuban's assessment because I don't believe that he has considered all of the possibilities, but it doesn't strike me as envious considering how illogical that emotion would be under these circumstances. I think he's a loudmouth at times who looks for things to rant about, but envy... no.
And this is why it is illogical for Cuban to be envious. He has done so much better than the guys at YouTube though his service wasn't as advanced, he didn't spend as much money as they did, nor have his site gain the type of fame as theirs. The reason he made so much money and deserved it was that he did it at a time when that type of service and technology was still new and more valuable than it is now.
so, by making the statement, he wasn't being envious, he was being short-sighted...
and this is the man that you want to replace Stern as commissioner of the NBA?
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 02:15 AM
btw, the amount that Youtube raised in venture capital is $11.5 million, which is less than 1 percent of the amount they received from google
Exactly... prior to the purchase, youtube was losing money. Youtube had no long term business plan... their plan was to be bought, and they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic. This is why it is illogical for Cuban to be evious of YouTube... In terms of money... amount spent to amount gained... netwise, he dwarfs YouTube...
How long ago was broadcast.com bought?
Exactly! A LONG TIME AGO. With that in mind, factoring inflation, the thought of purchasing the dominant position in the online, video market for over $5bil is even more unfathomable after Google purchased the lead position in the market for just $1.65 Bil, many, many years later.
G-train
11-02-2006, 02:16 AM
Sterns pretty good - just look at the fruit of his work.
its currently a pretty good product. Yes there is a couple of small issues, but overall hes done an excellent job.
I think it goes without saying he is a classy professional.
I think it goes without saying that Cuban is an immature person with poor self control and not much respect for authority
so, by making the statement, he wasn't being envious, he was being short-sighted...
and this is the man that you want to replace Stern as commissioner of the NBA?
so tell me for the last time, just to make sure...was it short-sightedness or envy?
Exactly... prior to the purchase, youtube was losing money. Youtube had no long term business plan... their plan was to be bought, and they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic. This is why it is illogical for Cuban to be evious of YouTube... In terms of money... amount spent to amount gained... netwise, he dwarfs YouTube...
i don't know if you know this, but when you have MILLIONS of users pouring into your site each and every single day, you don't need to be too concerned with your long-term business plan...eventually, money will pour in...they knew that the $11 Mil would be chump change
G-train
11-02-2006, 02:23 AM
Give the ball a season- it if dodgey they get rid of it.
Dress code makes sense - I make about 40K for a multi million dollar business and have to dress business.
these guys make mutli millions themselves so should at least look professional
hand checking rule is good cos unskilled hacks cant gwet the better of talented players
Nice work Dave
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 02:26 AM
so, by making the statement, he wasn't being envious, he was being short-sighted...
and this is the man that you want to replace Stern as commissioner of the NBA?
Yes, I believe he was myopic in his assessment... I'm not surprised that you're just getting that (though I've been saying it for some time); I'm not convinced that have been following this conversation. What I want you to do is go back and quote me on where I said that I want Cuban to be commissioner or that I want him to replace Stern.
You must be confused... You'll find that I said no such thing, nor have I hinted at it, and my posts in this thread bear that out. I entered this conversation to correct you on your false statements concerning broadcast.com as a "worthless dot com bust" and "one of the worst business moves EVER made during the dot com era." Those things simply aren't true. If you're going to attack someone, at least take the time to be accurate. That includes me as well as Cuban.
Yes, I believe he was myopic in his assessment... I'm not surprised that you're just getting that (though I've been saying it for some time); I'm not convinced that have been following this conversation. What I want you to do is go back and quote me on where I said that I want Cuban to be commissioner or that I want him to replace Stern.
You must be confused... You'll find that I said no such thing, nor have I hinted at it, and my posts in this thread bear that out. I entered this conversation to correct you on your false statements concerning broadcast.com as a "worthless dot com bust" and "one of the worst business moves EVER made during the dot com era." Those things simply aren't true. If you're going to attack someone, at least take the time to be accurate. That includes me as well as Cuban.
I'm not sure if you read this previous post, so here goes...
You asked, "how long ago did Yahoo purchase Broadcast?"
I said, "A LONG TIME AGO. With that in mind, factoring inflation, the thought of purchasing the dominant position in the online, video market for over $5bil is even more unfathomable after Google purchased the lead position in the market for just $1.65 Bil, many, many years later."
if you were not the one who said that cuban should be commissioner, fine, but someone did. to me, this is a messageboard, and that I find your pseudo-identities inconsequential and of little concern
Yes, I believe he was myopic in his assessment... I'm not surprised that you're just getting that (though I've been saying it for some time)
the reason why i *just* got to that is b/c you led me to that point. i still hold to my original assertion that it was due to envy
BradMiller52
11-02-2006, 02:36 AM
Do you know how much NBA revenue has increased since stern became commissioner in 1984? Think about how much NBA players earn compared to non-athletes, such as your parents, and you're telling me that Stern should be fired? Currently, games are being televised on ABC, ESPN, and TNT across the entire nation, and internationally, too, and you're telling me that Stern should be fired? Stern is a legend in the business world and a vanguard of the NBA because of his work since 1984, and you're saying that he should be fired? Are you smoking crack?
:stupid:
You know there was this guy Michael Jordan, and he was pretty good, so I think it's safe to assume HE was the reason for the increase in revenue. Not dumbass Stern:banghead:
using the #s of users as a barometer of success, which is presently the standard for web apps/sites....comparing the number of broadcast's users and the number of youtube's users, broadcast was a failure, especially at the price that Yahoo paid for it...no if, and, or but
:stupid:
You know there was this guy Michael Jordan, and he was pretty good, so I think it's safe to assume HE was the reason for the increase in revenue. Not dumbass Stern:banghead:
Stern did ride his coattails, and I never said he didn't, but Stern has been a part of the overall management and viability of the NBA in the sports world
-new ball
-dress code
whatever else you have to add is of little matter...he should NOT be fired
Y2Gezee
11-02-2006, 02:42 AM
I will give Stern a lot of the credit for the NBA's popularity. He did heavily promote the individual player in the NBA and it helps a lot.
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 02:46 AM
Exactly! A LONG TIME AGO. With that in mind, factoring inflation, the thought of purchasing the dominant position in the online, video market for over $5bil is even more unfathomable after Google purchased the lead position in the market for just $1.65 Bil, many, many years later.
You're forgetting to factor in the benefits that having Launch for so many years afforded Yahoo! over the course of those years.
Now it's likely that some new technology or service will start up in a few years and sell at a price lower than YouTube, but will give the purchaser control over online video. There is still room for improvement... Better compression, smaller file sizes, better download and upload options, options for better video streaming and broadband management to and on portable handheld devices... It would be stupid to go back and say "Well Google really got fooled when they bough YouTube. This new technology has taken over and they were bought for much less." That's the nature of business and techology. Better technology arrives and takes the place of old technology. In the meantime, it's just smart business to take advantage of the available technologies. Launch had and is having a nice run. Without it, Yahoo! wouldn't have done as well as they have.
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 02:53 AM
if you were not the one who said that cuban should be commissioner, fine, but someone did. to me, this is a messageboard, and that I find your pseudo-identities inconsequential and of little concern
I just want to make sure that you understand that you were wrong in thinking that I supported Cuban as GM and if you were actually paying attention, you would not have made that mistake. When you're responding to the posts of many people on a messageboard, it pays to actually keep the arguments straight and know who is arguing what. When you don't, you get confused as you've demonstrated.
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 02:57 AM
i don't know if you know this, but when you have MILLIONS of users pouring into your site each and every single day, you don't need to be too concerned with your long-term business plan...eventually, money will pour in...they knew that the $11 Mil would be chump change
And that's why I said "they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic."
If you're going to debate this, you need to read through the posts more carefully.
You're forgetting to factor in the benefits that having Launch for so many years afforded Yahoo! over the course of those years.
I can pull up the numbers on Yahoo's profits. As I already said, the crux of the revenue comes from news, search and email, so it is reasonable to say much of that time, which you constantly mention, was spent reaching the breakeven point (over $5 Bil, if you forgot)
JtotheIzzo
11-02-2006, 02:59 AM
Stern didn't seriously want to increase the height o the basket
he simply was looking for a way keep little people in the game
he went and asked a knowledgeable person before making any decisions
that is what good leaders do
IMO that is good management
I don't agree with everything Stern does (duh) but this was handled properly
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 03:08 AM
using the #s of users as a barometer of success, which is presently the standard for web apps/sites....comparing the number of broadcast's users and the number of youtube's users, broadcast was a failure, especially at the price that Yahoo paid for it...no if, and, or but
Again, you're displaying a myopic assessment of the company, perhaps even more so than Cuban's assessment of youtube. You can't compare broadcast's users in the past to youtube users now... There are a number of factors involved... one being that the number of people with high speed broadband in the past is miniscule to the number of users now. Add to that the fact that online video was still relatively new and that Yahoo! Launch hasn't updated the technology and you begin to get a more accurate picture. For what it was... a service that distributed video online (and innovation at the time), it did what was expected of it, and it was very successful.
And that's why I said "they did a masterful job enticing companies to buy them. Their technology is fantastic."
If you're going to debate this, you need to read through the posts more carefully.
i don't know if you remember what you wrote prior to that, but you attempted to discredit youtube's success by mentioning its spending of venture capital in a weak attempt to prove broadcast's success...
Prior to the advent of youtube, which is only a little over a year old, Launch was the place for online music videos. YouTube has taken over, and rightfully so, because of how useable it is, but YouTube has been burning through venture capital and really hasn't been making money. Not too long ago, when it came to video, not only didn't YouTube come close, it didn't exist. It makes no sense to wait for a technology that you don't know will come into existence, and even though hindsight is 20/20, Yahoo! would still buy broadcast.com for the benefits it has provided Yahoo! (in the form of Yahoo! Launch) over the years. It's just smart business. The benefits Launch has provided Yahoo far outweight the price of broadcast.com as well as the drawback of buying YouTube now and not having Launch for all those years.
hey, it's understandable. it's getting late. you can forget things....
Again, you're displaying a myopic assessment of the company, perhaps even more so than Cuban's assessment of youtube. You can't compare broadcast's users in the past to youtube users now... There are a number of factors involved... one being that the number of people with high speed broadband in the past is miniscule to the number of users now. Add to that the fact that online video was still relatively new and that Yahoo! Launch hasn't updated the technology and you begin to get a more accurate picture. For what it was... a service that distributed video online (and innovation at the time), it did what was expected of it, and it was very successful.
myopic? after comparing the number users and estimating the amount of time that it took yahoo to make the $5 Bil back, just to get back to neutral, the product fell short...
what else is there to review?
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 03:19 AM
I can pull up the numbers on Yahoo's profits. As I already said, the crux of the revenue comes from news and email, so it is reasonable to say much of that time, which you constantly mention, was spent reaching the breakeven point (over $5 Bil, if you forgot)
And it's reasonable to assume that they've passed the breakeven point. You also have to take into account the Launch users who may have been directed to or became interested in other Yahoo applications and those who were familiar with Yahoo but became more active because of Launch...
And it's reasonable to assume that they've passed the breakeven point.
and it probably took a considerable amount of time. the kind of time that you were so adamant in mentioning when you said attempted to prove broadcast's success by stressing that it was first to market...
You also have to take into account the Launch users who may have been directed to or became interested in other Yahoo applications and those who were familiar with Yahoo but became more active because of Launch...
please. it's the other way around
:roll:
i wonder how many users on this board have, at one point, been regular users of Yahoo! Launch..
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 03:38 AM
i don't know if you remember what you wrote prior to that, but you attempted to discredit youtube's success by mentioning its spending of venture capital in a weak attempt to prove broadcast's success...
Not at all. Again, please do not distort my arguments. You've already done so once, saying that I support Cuban for commisioner. The point I made was that while youtube was successful in attracting users and has indeed taken over the marketshare for online video, they had no business plan other than to be bought. I didn't add this in my initial post, but by 1999, broadcast.com was bringing in close to 100 million annually. Cuban obviously had a business plan. My point is that in the end, Cuban did better than those who developed youtube even though their express purpose was to be bought and his wasn't... there is no reason for him to be envious... he has his money and he didn't spend nearly as much as youtube in venture capital... In fact, he made money before his company was bought.
The Mamba
11-02-2006, 03:53 AM
Stern is a racist little clown. Thinks he is George Bush Jr. of the NBA.
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 03:58 AM
myopic? after comparing the number users and estimating the amount of time that it took yahoo to make the $5 Bil back, just to get back to neutral, the product fell short...
what else is there to review?
Not really... When you've broken even, have made money, are still making money, and will continue to make money based on an investment a number of years ago, that's success. Perhaps you expected Yahoo to dominate online video, but they were dominant long enough and are still profiting on their investment...
Not at all. Again, please do not distort my arguments. You've already done so once, saying that I support Cuban for commisioner. The point I made was that while youtube was successful in attracting users and has indeed taken over the marketshare for online video, they had no business plan other than to be bought. I didn't add this in my initial post, but by 1999, broadcast.com was bringing in close to 100 million annually. Cuban obviously had a business plan. My point is that in the end, Cuban did better than those who developed youtube even though their express purpose was to be bought and his wasn't... there is no reason for him to be envious... he has his money and he didn't spend nearly as much as youtube in venture capital... In fact, he made money before his company was bought.
you must be tired. go to sleep. i never said that cuban didn't rake in money. cuban made the majority of his money by selling a product that turned out to be a bust. it's simple as that. the reason why we've been arguing all this while.
before the sale, cuban was making millions. after the sale, he made billions. big difference.
It wasn't a fair exchange. $5Bil. for a bust. Cuban got lucky, and Yahoo got the short end of the stick.
If you want to make up some numbers on how Yahoo made great profits through Broadcast, because that's what you'd have to do to disprove me, go ahead.
Not really... When you've broken even, have made money, are still making money, and will continue to make money based on an investment a number of years ago, that's success. Perhaps you expected Yahoo to dominate online video, but they were dominant long enough and are still profiting on their investment...
still profiting? haha...that's a good one...you must not be aware of the current state of the online, video market...google video and youtube are the major players...other video sites are also coming out, copying youtube...and you think that there's room for profit for yahoo...as if there ever was profit after the $5Bil cost that they had to overcome...your argument has just turned towards the direction of the inane
:roll:
i'm calling it a night..thanks for ending it with a laugh.
MaxFly
11-02-2006, 04:15 AM
still profiting? haha...that's a good one...you must not be aware of the current state of the online, video market...google video and youtube are the major players...other video sites are also coming out, copying youtube...and you think that there's room for profit for yahoo...as if there ever was profit after the $5Bil cost that they had to overcome...your argument has just turned towards the direction of the inane
:roll:
I get the feeling you haven't checked out launch in a while, so I'll let you do a little homework and figure out how Yahoo is still drawing a profit from Launch... It's pretty easy to deduce... Hopefully you're smart enough to figure it out... If not, I've wasted my evening just talking to you... you wouldn't have understood anything... :confusedshrug:
I get the feeling you haven't checked out launch in a while, so I'll let you do a little homework and figure out how Yahoo is still drawing a profit from Launch... It's pretty easy to deduce... Hopefully you're smart enough to figure it out... If not, I've wasted my evening just talking to you... you wouldn't have understood anything... :confusedshrug:
Online Video Market
YouTube www.youtube.com 42.86% ($1.65 Billiion)
MySpace Videos 27.36%
Yahoo! Video Search 7.22% ($5.7 Billion)
there it is according to hitwise.com...look at the utter domination by youtube compared to Yahoo...like you said, launch must be reeling in those huge profits
:roll:
KingofKings718
11-02-2006, 12:27 PM
D. Stern is that dude, but he seriously need to fall back and go to a barmitzvah or something. Classic Red Auerbach though LOL. R.I.P.
I get the feeling you haven't checked out launch in a while, so I'll let you do a little homework and figure out how Yahoo is still drawing a profit from Launch... It's pretty easy to deduce... Hopefully you're smart enough to figure it out... If not, I've wasted my evening just talking to you... you wouldn't have understood anything... :confusedshrug:
Internet Deals of the Damned
Broadcast.com: Yahoo bought the company for $5.7 billion as a way to marry TV and the Internet in 1999. It eventually happened, but in 2005, not in 1999 when Yahoo bought the company. The assets were never fully exploited by Yahoo, but it turned Mark Cuban, a PC reseller from Indiana, into a billionaire celebrity.
http://news.com.com/Internet+deals+of+the+damned/2100-1030_3-6124131.html
why don't you do us a favor and stop talking out of your ass...
it's starting to smell in here...
Rasheed1
11-02-2006, 01:12 PM
good points Kblaze, Max, Ced
Stern needs his ass kicked if he was seriously considering raising the goal...
Stern needs his ass kicked if he was seriously considering raising the goal...
you sound like a fan of the wwf who is hating on vince mcmahon. stern has been doing a good job of promoting himself and marketing his own character to the fans. i mean, he's not even a player, but everyone knows about him and can recognize him in a crowd.
that's awesome.
Internet Deals of the Damned
Broadcast.com: Yahoo bought the company for $5.7 billion as a way to marry TV and the Internet in 1999. It eventually happened, but in 2005, not in 1999 when Yahoo bought the company. The assets were never fully exploited by Yahoo, but it turned Mark Cuban, a PC reseller from Indiana, into a billionaire celebrity.
http://news.com.com/Internet+deals+of+the+damned/2100-1030_3-6124131.html
why don't you do us a favor and stop talking out of your ass...
it's starting to smell in here...
no meritless reply this time, ay, maxfly?
i would endorse the idea of raising the rim in the nba.
DavisIsMyUniBro
10-24-2015, 05:07 PM
what a stupid idea
bluechox2
10-24-2015, 05:09 PM
lebrons shooting percentage would go down...pure shooters will benefit
The_Yearning
10-24-2015, 05:23 PM
Paul Pierce wanted to do the same thing.
Guys like Dwight Howard wouldn't even be in this league right now.
Xsatyr
10-24-2015, 09:00 PM
Old ass thread...
Straight_Ballin
10-24-2015, 10:06 PM
How high?
High as a giraffe's ass.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61ufXy%2BNnhL.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.