Originally posted by bnyced0:
if you're saying that he can't raise a subject, discuss it, and try to make a change, you know what I really don't phuckin care enough to carry on. If you believe his position is written, and defined to the point where he has no effect on any policy, then that's fine I view leadership differently.
I'm not sure you're clear on who's really in charge of the NBA or what the definition of a Commissioner is. He answers to 30 owners, not the 19 fans the NBA has left.
You can view leadership anyway you'd like, but in this case, like any other professional sports league, you're dealing with an Oligarchy, and these owners don't like to give up much power, so they appoint a Commissioner, who's main job is to handle disputes between owners and follow the rules they set for him. They've been very careful to not allow the commissioner to be too powerful, and that's what's happening here.
They're not in it for the benefit of the fans, they're out to make money. You can think Stern is the weakest person on the planet when it comes to basketball, and you're probably right, but he's weak because the owners make him weak, so that's where you should direct your anger.
Honestly, if he decided to change the rule in this case for the good of the game, like we'd all like to see, who do you think the first person to call the Commissioners office would be? Peter Holt, because he'd stand to lose millions if his team weren't to move on to the next round because of an unwarranted decision by the Commissioner.
The Commissioner has the power to change the rule, but he has to do so at the next owners meeting - that's how the owners set it up. And that's where your blame and anger should be.
