Disagree that the system is broken. Changes were made in the late '90s to ensure that unproven, young bucks like KG couldn't land a monster deal without having played a minute on the floor. And key veterans like Pippen were low-balled most of their career. That was when the system was broken. Now the young guys have to gradually work their way up the max ladder.
So once a great player gets old and starts to decline, he and the team need to decide whether to take more money based on a good career, or less money to reflect the current state of decline. HOF guys who are heading downhill should know not to take more money at that point and instead use the rest to get more help to try to win more titles. Duncan has been willing to do that. Kobe obviously has not. Of course, there are reports that guys don't want to come play with him anyway, but that's a different discussion.
One other issue with the HOF exemption would be the growth of superteams. Not necssarily more superteams, just bigger/better superteams. Think of the Heat. D-Wade is arguably a top-5 SG of all time and is likely headed to the HOF. So should the Heat have been able to retain Wade at half-price (against the cap) so that Bron Bron and Bosh could sign? If so, that Big 3 would have been a Big 4 as they would have been able to sign another quality guy.
That said, I think superteams are good for the NBA, but only to a point. I don't think they ought to be easier to form than they are now. If guys want to team up, let them take pay cuts to do it. Don't make these things more attractive by making the money less of an issue. The superteams (as they are now) are not invincible (as we have seen recently). And that's part of what makes it compelling and fun.
Would not be in favor of a HOF cap exemption for players. For players like Kobe, Duncan, etc. it's obvious. But then you'd have agents for fringe guys trying to argue for the same thing. It'd be way too subjective to be fairly applied.
I see your point, but I think the open market still ought to dictate how much players in the twilight of their careers get paid. Or teams can simply choose to overpay to take care of their own (like the Lakers did). Nowadays, it's hard to have much sympathy for future HOF players since they get tons of $$$ from the endorsements. So getting paid more from their team can't be about the money. If anything, it's about the respect. In regard to Duncan, he clearly isn't in it for the money.
[Gamblers love that fact. Fantasy football players embrace that knowledge. Heck, the drama and unpredictability from a TV standpoint make it the best reality TV going.]
I'd say parity is a push with gamblers. They'd still blow their money either way. As a fantasy football player, I HATE the parity. I wish the teams were more consistent so I would know who to start and who to sit each week. From a TV standpoint, only the underdog fans benefit from parity knowing that they have somewhat of a shot in every game. But a league full of mediocre teams isn't that much fun. I watch much less NFL now than I did 5 or 10 years ago. Not very many compelling matchups anymore.
Martin Luther, Luther Massengil, Luther Vandross (good call, OG), and MLK Jr.
Agreed on Luther. Dude was aces. Chattanooga lost a great one this morning. They don't make 'em like that anymore.
Looking at how the SoCon has shaked out so far, it's possible that the Mocs haven't played anyone in the top 4 yet. After this weekend, there are no gimmes.
GSU still has a football team? (Just kiddin', Spy.)
No question that Peyton is the greatest ever. He continues to add to his legacy. Jay, what will it take for you to feel comfortable saying Peyton is the greatest? Another ring? 2 more rings? The ring count in a sport like football is an overblown stat. Anyone who ranks one player over another based on rings is disrespecting the position.
No question Kareem is the greatest center of all time. Period. Wilt is a close second. Russell is a not-as-close third. MJ is the greatest ever overall.
I don't get the feeling that Winston is anywhere near the top of being hated. I would say there was more hate toward Cam during his investigation (if you want to call it that). Any Duke b-ball star that's ever played for Coach K has taken it way worse than either of those guys will ever know. And those guys weren't even in trouble...their "offense" was simply wearing the Duke uniform.
If not for the Ray Rice saga, the media would still be all over this issue (you included). But somehow (thank goodness), most of the talk started centering around the actual games once the season started. But I think we can both agree that this issue is far from being settled and dropped.
I thought you'd enjoy the debate. It's part of the fun of the 5-at-10. So thanks for the platform. And the back and forth.
[The big one that Snyder had issue was a column — an opinion piece mind you — that made fun of him and Lil' Lord Flutterbug got his panties in a bunch.]
Columns are primarily opinion-based, but they also contain facts. And Snyder took issue with some "facts" that he said were incorrect. Best case scenario would be the writer apologizing for any errors and either the writer or Snyder simply setting the record straight. We are in agreement that a lawsuit was not necessary in this case. But freedom of the press shouldn't mean freedom from journalistic standards for a reputable news source.
[I'm certainly not offended by it...]
Then why are you joining the push for a name change? (As opposed to an indifferent approach?)
[...and it's not my spot — or yours — to decide what offends people, but there certainly seems to be ample evidence of Native Americans being offended.]
The Redskins' name would not be an issue AT ALL if not for the liberal white guys in the media (and Harry Reid) making a big deal about it. 90% of native Americans support use of the Redskins name.
[And just because the media reports on something you don't like does not make it some sort of conspiracy or agenda, but feel free to cloak yourself in that approach.]
I have no problem with reporting. But after reporting that most native Americans and also most Americans overall think the Redskins' name is fine and the team shouldn't change their name, why is this still an issue? This would simply go away if the media quit talking about it. It becomes less about reporting and more about pushing an agenda. Period.
[As for Silver, well, dude likely over stepped, but he acted swiftly and decisively and stuck to his guns when he needed to make a statement in a monster issue for his league.]
Yes, Silver was decisive. But he went decisively too far. If LeBron hadn't said, "There's no place for Sterling in our league," Silver would not have banned him for life. No way Stern would have banned Sterling for life.
[While we don't agree that he should have forced him to sell for that one offense...]
Good to see because you previously agreed with the decision. And Silver made clear the banishment was only for that one offense.
Snyder was more upset at (what he said were) factual misstatements in an article than the actual criticism. Still, those could have been better addressed than with a lawsuit (which was later dropped).
Regarding the team name, more white people are "offended" by the Redskins' name than the actual Native Americans are. Leave it to the liberal media to talk about a problem that isn't really there. The push to change the Redskins' name is nothing more than an attempt to make America more p.c. If this were the NBA, I'm sure your buddy Adam Silver would have banned Snyder for life by now due to his unwillingness to cave to the p.c. police. You can't tell me that would be a good thing.
Other than maybe Jerry Jones, what "buffoon owners have bumbled their way to titles?" Some guys know what they're doing; most however are best when they don't micro-manage the guys they have in place to help the team succeed. In the Redskins' case, Dan Snyder hurts more than he helps, and it is absolutely a reap-what-you-sow result.
JP, Dan Snyder is simply another example of an owner hurting his team by getting too involved in player personnel decisions. He's not the first and certainly won't be the last. As a result, the Redskins have suffered. The RG III trade is one of the worst (if not the worst) draft trade of all time (and I said that when it happened). It will take years to get over that one. The coaching carousel isn't too surprising given the results of the team. The coach (fair or unfair) usually gets the blame and suffers for it. Other franchises treat their guys the same way too.
The Redskins' woes are more of a reap-what-you-sow. Saying it's karma implies that the Redskins have a poor record simply because Dan Snyder is a bad guy. And that's crazy.
Jay, to be sure, what did you mean by the karma comment?
Wow, just saw you posted the same question about getting paid for stuff. To answer the question, I wouldn't have a problem with that setup. A big issue though would be making sure the dealers (or whomever) are honest about all sales and keep a complete list to determine how much the player will end up getting paid. Should the schools use their lawyers and/or financial advisers to help in this area? Otherwise, the players risk getting burned by the greedy and more shrewd money-makers.
Spot-on, MT. And if you say the payments should be capped, it wouldn't lessen the risk that more would be happening under the table (like they are now).
Is it against NCAA rules for a player to have an agreement to collect money for signed jerseys after he is done with his college career? In other words, sign now, get paid later? I assume it's not permitted, but I think a lot of the players getting paid would rather risk getting the under-the-table cash now instead of having to wait later anyway. However, if there's a loophole in the rules, a little delayed gratification would be better.
Seattle is still a top-5 team. I would put them in instead of Philly. And I might replace the Rams in the bottom 5 with the Jets.
[We blame Daniel Snyder and we credit karma for Washington's continued stinkiness. That is all.]
Karma for what? A refusal to change the team name?