-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]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.[/QUOTE]
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?
-
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
David Stern saving the NBA is a belief that comes from numbers with no consideration being given to the situation that created them.[/QUOTE]
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...
-
[QUOTE=asd]
-a new ball
-dress code
-[B]higher basket[/B]
When it comes to firing the commissioner of the NBA, this type of reasoning is [B]trivial [/B]and in no way should be held in higher light than the NBA's monumental revenues. [/QUOTE]
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:
-
-
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.
-
[QUOTE=asd]"On no! A higher basket. The NBA is going down the drain now. Stern should be fired!"
Cry me a river..[/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=asd]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!"
[/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=asd]Regardless of the new ball, dress code, or hand-checking rules, the current Cavs-Wizard game is pretty damn exciting.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
this forum has some lame ads
-
[QUOTE=SomeBunghole]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=asd]
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.[/QUOTE]
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 [url]www.nationalbusinessreview.com[/url]
-
[QUOTE=asd]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.[/QUOTE]
You don't get the point. You are stupid.
-
-
[QUOTE=asd]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?[/QUOTE]
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.
-
-
[QUOTE=asd]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?[/QUOTE]
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 [B]Basketball[/B] Association
Have you noticed nobody is backing your argument?
-
[QUOTE=asd]"You are stupid~" Wah, wah~
:roll:[/QUOTE]
It's not long before oyu have some sort of stupid title under your name, the defining moment of becoming an idiot at ISH
-
-
-
[QUOTE=asd]without the business, you wouldn't be able to watch basketball games on tv, buy basketball gear, and etc...
[/QUOTE]
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.
-
-
[QUOTE=asd]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.[/QUOTE]
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?
-
[QUOTE=asd]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.[/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=SomeBunghole]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?[/QUOTE]
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?
-
ASD, just waiting for you to respond to my post concerning online video.
-
[QUOTE=asd]so, are you saying that the league should be a communist league? compared to the commissioner, the fans get equal say?[/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=asd]When that limit is reached, the business is forced to make necessary changes. Are you saying that the limit has been reached? [B]Are you and the majority of all the fans writing your letters to the NBA, and no longer watching games until Stern is removed? [/B][/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]ASD, just waiting for you to respond to my post concerning online video.[/QUOTE]
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..
[B][url]http://digg.com/tech_news/Mark_Cuban_Only_a_moron_would_buy_YouTub[/url][/B]
"This coming from the guy who started Broadcast.com and sold it to Yahoo, right. A little p*nis envy, eh."
[B]"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."[/B]
Should I keep going?
-
[QUOTE=MaxFly]ASD, just waiting for you to respond to my post concerning online video.[/QUOTE]
waiting for your response, MaxFly...
-
-
[QUOTE=asd]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?[/QUOTE]
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 [B]attention [/B]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?
-
[QUOTE=asd]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.[/QUOTE]
Having a Euro NBA is a terrible idea. Travel? I don't think anybody in the NBA wants to do that other than Stern.
-
-
[QUOTE=eliteballer]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.[/QUOTE]
sounds good to me. he's a geek.
-
[QUOTE=asd]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[/QUOTE]
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.
-
[QUOTE=asd]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."[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]this argument has been made already...check out the link..
[B][url]http://digg.com/tech_news/Mark_Cuban_Only_a_moron_would_buy_YouTub[/url][/B]
"This coming from the guy who started Broadcast.com and sold it to Yahoo, right. A little p*nis envy, eh."
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]"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."[/QUOTE]
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?
