As the vacant jobs in the NBA coaching ranks are slowly filled, one thing is clear:
Negro coaches are being quickly and quietly escorted to the door. And their jobs are being filled by retreads and status quo ghosts.
Is it the NBA's desire to send a message to Negro coaches that they belong on the second or third seat on the bench? That, rather than give them the chance to mature and develop a program, the NBA is better suited by playing 'musical chairs' with the same old cotton swabs, over and over?
Is firing the Negro coach with the NBA's best winning percentage over the past 3 seasons and claiming the reason for the termination was playoff losses; and then hiring a man with a history of playoff failure not the very definition of bleachy hypocrisy?
Let's look more closely.
Sam Vincent was brought in to Charlotte at the beginning of the season. He was forced out after the season. One year. One year is all he was given to turn around a floundering and lost franchise. Who did Charlotte bring in? The man responsible for burning down Madison Square Garden (although the press has tried to blame someone else). Larry Brown. The King of The Road is the hired gun brought in to turn Charlotte around. Yes, the man has won a title. But he has also left carnage and destruction at virtually every stop, after he finds a bigger paycheck to chase. His experience and coaching 'the right way' will probably lead to more wins in the immediate future. But, is it worth it for the Bobcats to take one step forward, knowing full well that at the end of Brown's tenure they will end up being two steps back?
After Scott Skiles was let go in Chicago (and interim Boylan was sent to the soup kitchen), Chicago management said they were interested in hiring a 'tough, former player'. Naturally, folks thought that meant Avery Johnson (the possessor of the NBA's highest winning percentage over the past few years) or perhaps Mark Jackson. Well, apparently, 'tough, former player' is code for 'washed up, retread vanilla cupcake'. ESPN is reporting that Doug Collins will get the nod in Chi-town.
Isiah Thomas, victim of Larry Brown's most recent 'rape and pillage' expedition, was run off the bench in NYC. Certainly, arguments for Thomas' release abound. And we do not pretend to support the notion that Thomas had the team on the right track. However, rather than bring in someone with a deep connection and understanding of the NBA's flagship franchise...the Knicks brought in a coach who runs a system which the Knicks don't have the personnel to man. In the process, Knicks management managed to offend a Knickerbocker all-time great.
"There's nobody who is an assistant coach who doesn't want to be a head coach," said Ewing, who has been an assistant for five seasons and is credited with lifting center Dwight Howard to the next level. "Unless you've already been a head coach and you're older and you're just putting in hours until you retire. I'm young. I'd definitely want to be a head coach one day.
And I'm disappointed I didn't get a call, yeah.
In one fell swoop, through these firings, the NBA was able to reduce the ranks of Negro head coaches by a staggering 25%.
In contrast, the ranks of white coaches have increased by over 10%.
These are chilling numbers that, coupled with the retread hirings of Brown, Carlisle, Skiles, D'Antonio and possibly Collins, send a clear message to Negro assistant coaches everywhere:
We prefer failed white men to be the face of NBA franchises, rather than give you an equal chance to succeed.
Back to the third seat!
Showing posts with label isiah thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label isiah thomas. Show all posts
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Marbury: Enough's Enough
Stephon Marbury has had a lucrative career, but a lackluster career. Marbury can appropriately be labelled 'over rated'.
Of course, Marbury would see things differently. Fancying himself a franchise player, his career has been marked with somewhat selfish decisions borne of the frustration of his own perception of his abilities versus reality.
Marbury has had squabbles in the past over minutes and role, and has had rifts with coaches and management.
Interestingly enough, his own misperception of his performance mimics the media's misperception of his latest contemptuous retreat from his assigned duty.
Marbury, founder of an admirably affordable and culture changing shoe line, most certainly will be portrayed as having run out on his team in anger over the possibility of losing playing time.
Unfortunately, just as Marbury's past decisions were based on his misperceptions about his performance and value on the court, the media has completely misperceived his latest actions and completely disregarded the strides his maturity has measured over the past year.
Marbury was intimately involved in the harassment case against his coach, Isiah Thomas. He saw firsthand how Thomas' actions adversely and nearly irreparably harmed the life of a mother. He witnessed, as his own behavior and less than respectful treatment of a female, was brought to testimony in court.
He grew.
And now, when his maturity, sensitivity and social conscience have reached soaring heights. When he is willing to risk it all to stand by his newfound convictions. Now, the media wants to portray him as a rabble rousing, selfish prima dona.
It's clear for anyone to see that this most recent incident is not about basketball. It can't be.
Just as Marbury chose to give up millions of dollars in endorsement opportunities to provide youths with stylish and culturally relevent kicks at a low cost; now he risks forfeiting the remainder of his $42M contract to make a point.
Marbury has had enough.
And we don't blame him for not being willing to play for an organization that has fostered and nurtured an atmosphere that allows the unfair and disprespectful treatment of women.
Marbury's action is the ultimate show of solidarity with females:
We can't even count the number of times the significant females in our lives have not gotten their way and stormed out of the room.
Of course, Marbury would see things differently. Fancying himself a franchise player, his career has been marked with somewhat selfish decisions borne of the frustration of his own perception of his abilities versus reality.
Marbury has had squabbles in the past over minutes and role, and has had rifts with coaches and management.
Interestingly enough, his own misperception of his performance mimics the media's misperception of his latest contemptuous retreat from his assigned duty.
Marbury, founder of an admirably affordable and culture changing shoe line, most certainly will be portrayed as having run out on his team in anger over the possibility of losing playing time.
Unfortunately, just as Marbury's past decisions were based on his misperceptions about his performance and value on the court, the media has completely misperceived his latest actions and completely disregarded the strides his maturity has measured over the past year.
Marbury was intimately involved in the harassment case against his coach, Isiah Thomas. He saw firsthand how Thomas' actions adversely and nearly irreparably harmed the life of a mother. He witnessed, as his own behavior and less than respectful treatment of a female, was brought to testimony in court.
He grew.
And now, when his maturity, sensitivity and social conscience have reached soaring heights. When he is willing to risk it all to stand by his newfound convictions. Now, the media wants to portray him as a rabble rousing, selfish prima dona.
It's clear for anyone to see that this most recent incident is not about basketball. It can't be.
Just as Marbury chose to give up millions of dollars in endorsement opportunities to provide youths with stylish and culturally relevent kicks at a low cost; now he risks forfeiting the remainder of his $42M contract to make a point.
Marbury has had enough.
And we don't blame him for not being willing to play for an organization that has fostered and nurtured an atmosphere that allows the unfair and disprespectful treatment of women.
Marbury's action is the ultimate show of solidarity with females:
We can't even count the number of times the significant females in our lives have not gotten their way and stormed out of the room.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Isiah Thomas: Jury Rules In Her Favor
After a few days of deliberation, it seems the jury has found in favor of the complainant in the case against Isiah Thomas and the New York Knicks.
Certainly, anyone subjected to unwelcome advances and abusive language is deserving of protection. And possibly even compensation for the unpleasantness and stress caused by the situation.
Madison Square Garden was also found to be responsible for punitive damages.
Despite the jury's seeming assuredness in their conclusion, one must wonder about the situation.
Was Anucha Browne Saunders granted considerable benefit by the jury in their interpretation of her responsibility in the interactions?
Certainly, Browne Saunders convinced the jury that she was harassed. But, in the arena and business of male sports: what is harassment?
We are talking about a culture of male interaction, relationships, expectations and behavior. Certainly, if a female chooses to enter that world, she should have a thorough indoctrination into the culture. A complete understanding of the world she is entering. The notion that the established culture must change to accommodate the sensibilities of someone entering it is unfair. It's a tyranny of the minority to suggest that now, because Anucha Browne Saunders was unable to adjust to a world that existed in good condition before her association with it, that that world must change.
The fallacious reaction is that the individuals that are already a part of the culture at The Garden should take harassment training and sensitivity training. All in an effort for their successful and happy organization to change to accommodate one individual.
Certainly, the more reasonable course of action would be for Browne Saunders to undergo some sort of counselling or course to help ease her into the culture. To help change her sensibilities, perceptions and attitude. To help her understand that the onus is on her to fit in with the culture.
What efforts did Browne Saunders make to adapt to the Knicks culture? Did she exhaust every opportunity to fit in?
There are accounts that she was the frequent vocalizer of less than civil word choices. So, clearly, at some point she did attempt to fit in to the culture.
Why did she stop trying? Because she realized that this job and culture simply wasn't for her?
There is no shame in that. Sometimes, when one assumes a responsibility that is not suitable in a cultural environment in which fitting in is something they simply can't do, the best course of action is to find one that is suitable. Not damage the already existing culture by trying to force a reconstruction of the already established and well functioning working environment.
Obviously, if Browne Saunders had simply explained herself and left, Thomas and MSG couldn't have had any less respect for her.
By giving up, Browne Saunders may have made herself a lot of money. But, everyday when she looks at her bank account, she will have to live with the fact that she simply quit. She gave up on herself.
And she gave up on being a female and fitting into the culture of the business of male sports.
Because of this, we predict that opportunities for women in male sports front offices will be in even less availability.
Anucha Browne Saunders gave up on women.
And at NOIS, unlike some, we think women are worth more than a $10M settlement.
Certainly, anyone subjected to unwelcome advances and abusive language is deserving of protection. And possibly even compensation for the unpleasantness and stress caused by the situation.
Madison Square Garden was also found to be responsible for punitive damages.
Despite the jury's seeming assuredness in their conclusion, one must wonder about the situation.
Was Anucha Browne Saunders granted considerable benefit by the jury in their interpretation of her responsibility in the interactions?
Certainly, Browne Saunders convinced the jury that she was harassed. But, in the arena and business of male sports: what is harassment?
We are talking about a culture of male interaction, relationships, expectations and behavior. Certainly, if a female chooses to enter that world, she should have a thorough indoctrination into the culture. A complete understanding of the world she is entering. The notion that the established culture must change to accommodate the sensibilities of someone entering it is unfair. It's a tyranny of the minority to suggest that now, because Anucha Browne Saunders was unable to adjust to a world that existed in good condition before her association with it, that that world must change.
The fallacious reaction is that the individuals that are already a part of the culture at The Garden should take harassment training and sensitivity training. All in an effort for their successful and happy organization to change to accommodate one individual.
Certainly, the more reasonable course of action would be for Browne Saunders to undergo some sort of counselling or course to help ease her into the culture. To help change her sensibilities, perceptions and attitude. To help her understand that the onus is on her to fit in with the culture.
What efforts did Browne Saunders make to adapt to the Knicks culture? Did she exhaust every opportunity to fit in?
There are accounts that she was the frequent vocalizer of less than civil word choices. So, clearly, at some point she did attempt to fit in to the culture.
Why did she stop trying? Because she realized that this job and culture simply wasn't for her?
There is no shame in that. Sometimes, when one assumes a responsibility that is not suitable in a cultural environment in which fitting in is something they simply can't do, the best course of action is to find one that is suitable. Not damage the already existing culture by trying to force a reconstruction of the already established and well functioning working environment.
Obviously, if Browne Saunders had simply explained herself and left, Thomas and MSG couldn't have had any less respect for her.
By giving up, Browne Saunders may have made herself a lot of money. But, everyday when she looks at her bank account, she will have to live with the fact that she simply quit. She gave up on herself.
And she gave up on being a female and fitting into the culture of the business of male sports.
Because of this, we predict that opportunities for women in male sports front offices will be in even less availability.
Anucha Browne Saunders gave up on women.
And at NOIS, unlike some, we think women are worth more than a $10M settlement.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Isiah Thomas: Accuser Drops Race Card?
The sexual harassment suit brought by a former marketing VP of the Knicks against Isiah Thomas is underway.
And, perhaps the most telling allegation made by the accuser thus far has been to seemingly paint the ever affable Thomas as a 'racist'.
Sanders said that when she asked Thomas at one point to hand-sign letters to season-ticket holders, he spat, "I don't give a f- - - about these white people."
So, the case is that Thomas made abusive statements and sexual advances towards this Anucha Browne Sanders. Yet, the effort is to turn the court against Thomas by attempting to characterize him as an angry Negro male that hated white folk?
Now, let's entertain this notion that the lips that form Mr. Thomas infectious smile could ever so much as utter the negative statement about those that hold the majority of seats in the arena he was trying to fill. Let's pretend it really happened. He really said it.
What does this have to do with her contentions of verbal abuse and unwanted sexual advances? What does Mr. Thomas' fictitious, though possibly well founded, contempt for white folks have to do with sexual harassment?
Nothing.
Not a thing.
It's only place in this opening assault on Mr. Thomas' character is to attempt to turn the court against him. Paint him as an angry 'racist' Negro male. Watch the court rule in your favor.
Oh, Sister Anucha! Has the white man's temptation of riches caused you to sacrifice the dignity of yourself and the reputation of your Brother?
Are we to believe that in a moment of frustration, Sister Anucha, you have never had a less than flattering word for the white man?
Is it so heinous for someone to have a bad day and make an off the cuff statement that might possibly be construed (if taken out of context) as derogatory to another race?
Of course it isn't.
We would hope that those involved in the adjudication process would certainly not be swayed by this horrid attempt to sully relations between Mr. Thomas and the white race and would not hold it against him.
After all, it isn't as if Mr. Thomas has a radio show and made outlandishly offensive comments for on air effect.
His alleged comments were just made in everyday life.
And, perhaps the most telling allegation made by the accuser thus far has been to seemingly paint the ever affable Thomas as a 'racist'.
Sanders said that when she asked Thomas at one point to hand-sign letters to season-ticket holders, he spat, "I don't give a f- - - about these white people."
So, the case is that Thomas made abusive statements and sexual advances towards this Anucha Browne Sanders. Yet, the effort is to turn the court against Thomas by attempting to characterize him as an angry Negro male that hated white folk?
Now, let's entertain this notion that the lips that form Mr. Thomas infectious smile could ever so much as utter the negative statement about those that hold the majority of seats in the arena he was trying to fill. Let's pretend it really happened. He really said it.
What does this have to do with her contentions of verbal abuse and unwanted sexual advances? What does Mr. Thomas' fictitious, though possibly well founded, contempt for white folks have to do with sexual harassment?
Nothing.
Not a thing.
It's only place in this opening assault on Mr. Thomas' character is to attempt to turn the court against him. Paint him as an angry 'racist' Negro male. Watch the court rule in your favor.
Oh, Sister Anucha! Has the white man's temptation of riches caused you to sacrifice the dignity of yourself and the reputation of your Brother?
Are we to believe that in a moment of frustration, Sister Anucha, you have never had a less than flattering word for the white man?
Is it so heinous for someone to have a bad day and make an off the cuff statement that might possibly be construed (if taken out of context) as derogatory to another race?
Of course it isn't.
We would hope that those involved in the adjudication process would certainly not be swayed by this horrid attempt to sully relations between Mr. Thomas and the white race and would not hold it against him.
After all, it isn't as if Mr. Thomas has a radio show and made outlandishly offensive comments for on air effect.
His alleged comments were just made in everyday life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)