Anybody listening to the show knows that Rome defended those comments by Stern. A commissioner of a major sport using that sort of rhetorical device in a national interview with the most-listened to host in the USA is what I found stupid. Then again, I hate David Stern anyhow.
I thought Rome was asking Stern about New Orleans, an NBA-owned team, getting the #1 pick, and Rome pretty much insinuated how stupid he found those charges. Rome asked because apparently it's mentioned quite often in Tweets and emails from his audience.
Asking once would be fine. Asking multiple times, following with a leading question ("Can't you see how it's a fair question?"), and ignoring the legitimate response when it doesn't jibe with his desired answer--that's what made it contentious. And like I said, Rome was the one who got emotional in the interview, which just felt unprofessional to me. IMO, a good interviewer can ask difficult questions without interrupting or talking over his guests.
I think Rome's post-Chris Everett run as an interviewer is pretty much unparalleled, outside of possibly Dan Patrick. David Stern has been an asshole in more than just this interview. I hold Stern to a higher standard than I hold a radio host, though, and Stern baiting Rome about how he's made his career was bush league. It was highly entertaining, though, and in the end, the guy with the mic everyday usually comes out ahead. Rome was already trying to defend Stern, to some degree, by the end of the show.
I've read so much stuff about Stern (good and bad) I don't know what to make of him. But if he is correct, the highest TV ratings for an NBA first game means the league is thriving. Does Stern deserve the credit for this?
It's not the highest-rated Game One ever, only the highest-rated Game 1 on ABC. It got an 11.6. As a comparison, last year's Super Bowl received a 46.8 (incredible, really), and even the Wisky-Oregon Rose Bowl got an 11.8 on a Monday afternoon on January 2nd. I do think it says something about the NBA that teams from Miami and OKC can attract so many eyeballs, though.
your reaction to what someone said to you (accusation, implication etc) says a lot about if you did something or not. His reaction to the question (cheesy or not) says a lot. he could've just said 'yeah, people think that, but that's ok. It's not really worth going into, but I will address it" and then addressed it.
That's pretty much my point, and Stern came across as very defensive. Rome gave Stern a chance to wipe it away, and for a league that went through Donaghy recently, and Scott Foster's obvious issues that continue, Stern failed to deliver the message. I'm guessing most of us who follow the NBA closely have come to accept that the league is rigged, anyhow, and it doesn't really matter to us, at least subconsciously.
That's kind of where I thought Stern lost it and then to suggest that he was going to freeze out Rome since he asked that question (or at least lower him in the priority) was kind of stupid. As Julius said, I would have just said that it's a ridiculous suggestion. The lottery is entirely random and observed by independent people, yet people will always believe what they want to believe.
Really? I get the reference, but the question you should be asking is whether or not the comissioner of a major sports league ought to be using language\phrases like that in the 1st place....There is such a tihng as being diplomatic, is there not? Not that I have sympathy for Rome per se, I found the whole interview quite funny actually....
The WWE has a ton of fans. Has everybody forgotten about Donaghy and Scott Foster, and their phone calls? Also the line changes after Foster's conversations? It was obvious that they were both in cahoots, yet nobody cares about it, and we all still post here.
So you equate the NBA to the WWE? And you choose to root hard for a local team, knowing it is rigged, and performance doesn't matter? Sounds like a big waste of money to me.
Of course Stern deserves credit for the NBA Finals matchup. Didn't you see the 2nd half of SAS vs OKC?
No. The WWE is open about their rigging, and doesn't pretend to be legitimate. Part of the intrigue of the NBA is watching horrific reffing in big games that directly impact the outcome, and then hearing the outrage about it.
So you watch for the refs? Fascinating. I always laughed at showy refs, saying hey,. nobody paid to see you. Guess I was wrong.
Dude, really? I said "part of the intrigue", but whatever. You have a laser-like focus on me at this point of the thread. Flame away. It's free therapy.
a laser like focus? lol. Sure thing. I responded to your comment equating it to the WWE. I expressed an opinion about how I felt paying for something like that is. laser like focus, gimme a break. Put me back on ignore if you don't like people responding to your stupid comments.
