Why do people hate nba commissioner

Look at not only the Sixers, but also what they're building in Minnesota. Heck, the Warriors before signing Kevin Durant built a championship team through the draft. Creating a winner takes years, and the way to preserve it is with young talent through the draft, which is something the Wizards now have locked up as well. As for the future of "The Process" and "tanking", there's really only so much the NBA can do to avoid it. People often just assume that their team lost because the refs were bad or the refs hate their team.

That's seems like some grade school-level logic to me. Sometimes your team just didn't play well enough, and that's why they lost. You can say that a foul should be the same for everybody, but the NBA would be pretty boring if every play was called the exact same way.

This is supposed to provide us with entertainment. It's not a league that's supposed to make us better hall monitors. David Stern could be a lot more transparent with how officials are reviewed by the league offices, and maybe it's time to add a fourth ref.

But I don't think NBA officiating is ever the reason a team loses. That's a scapegoat mentality I can't seem to get behind. In fact, they seem to have enraged fans all across smaller markets.

LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony and Dwight Howard are the poster children for such a movement because they all have found ways to team up in a bigger market with bigger stars than they previously resided in. While Miami is a desirable place for young millionaires to inhabit, it's by no means a big market.

It's been in the middle of the pack for NBA markets for quite some time now. In fact as of March , it was right behind Minneapolis in terms of market size, according to SportsMediaWatch. That idea that a player shouldn't be allowed to freely decide where they want to try to work seems kind of ridiculous when you break it down.

And to blame the size of the market for why teams are good and why teams are bad is just wrong. As Henry Abbott pointed out yesterday :. If you must blame the system Everybody knows the Magic could have gotten far better players than Arron Afflalo, picks and the like for Howard.

But Howard is a Laker because the Magic liked the Lakers' offer better than the Nets' offer, the Rockets ' offer or anybody else's. Those upset that Howard is a Laker howl at how bad this system is for small-market teams like the Magic -- and ignore the reality that the only reason this happened was because the Magic chose this offer. This was their decision alone. They perpetrated this deal; they cannot also be victims of it.

The Magic chose this miserable package. I have to believe they liked that offer best because it will most allow them to follow the model of GM Rob Hennigan's former employer, the Thunder.

OKC was terrible for years, by strategy -- in order to collect talent high in the draft. This is what another former Thunder front office employee, Rich Cho, has been doing with the Bobcats -- and he set a record for losing. The Magic will be right there with the Bobcats for a few years.

The Magic took a bad deal because that's what they were looking for. That's something the NBA should change. The best players in the world almost all go high in the lottery, to a collection of the teams that lose the most. If the best players found employment almost any other way, there'd be no reason for the Magic to have made the crucial decision to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

But for the lure of high picks born of terrible play, the Magic would have demanded great heaps of talented players for Howard, and the league wouldn't feel so lopsided. You can blame David Stern for the lopsided market sizes and success from said market sizes, but the fact is, smart NBA businesses end up winners if they want to be.

The Lakers and Clippers are prime examples of why market size doesn't mean automatic success. The Knicks, up until about a year-and-a-half ago, showed that market size doesn't mean you'll win. The Warriors have been in one of the biggest markets for years and have struggled to figure out how to win basketball games. The teams with good ownership and good management tend to figure out how to be great.

It's why the Spurs and Thunder are trying to be replicated around the league. The current system is actually more of a counter balance to the market size than it is a funnel that leads players to bigger pastures. This isn't something David Stern has helped along, but something he's actually helped try to prevent. Maybe he hasn't tried his hardest, but he's at least done something about it. Flopping sucks, and there is no way around it. You can tie it into the problem with officiating if you want, and it definitely is an argument against why rules maybe shouldn't be so ambiguous.

Because it's a product of ambiguous rules, you can peg it on David Stern for being his fault, but the reality of it all is, he's trying to prevent a lot more than he's trying to allow it to exist. Flopping is finding a way to bend the rules without actually moving into the category of outright cheating.

And if you think about it, it's kind of a smart strategy as long as its within the rules. Lakers fans rarely complained about Derek Fisher flopping. Clippers fans don't seem to mind when Blake Griffin or Chris Paul flop.

Thunder fans kind of smirk when James Harden gets away with an acting job. And Spurs fans could move the argument away from Manu flopping as something bad and turn it into an active protest to Joey Crawford and his "Tim Duncan-hating ways. I hate flopping because it is just too dramatic and over the top. Stern is disliked for making questionable calls for the league and being a jerk, the Rome interview being another example of such.

This just fuels the fire for the people who dislike him. Stern showed the unprofessional side of him, which is even more hated than his professional side.

Enjoy our content? Join our newsletter to get the latest in sports news delivered straight to your inbox!

Your sports.