NBA Dress Code - 3 Years Later (ESPN Bucher)

What does this even mean? That people who make money have to dress in a specific way?

A kid at my school was recently busted for having child porn. He wore mostly t-shirts. I wear mostly t-shirts. Should I stop wearing t-shirts, lest I look like a pedophile?

 

Hey - you got one right! Celebrate!

 

Were you trying to be ironic, because this post is pretty funny.

 

I agree, but it's consistent with what I've read from Stern over all the years. He strikes me as determined to make the NBA more marketable and profitable at any costs. I wouldn't say he, himself, is a racist. I have no knowledge of him on that level. I think he's simply 100% calculating and willing to make concessions to a racist segment of society if he felt it would help the league. That may be strong, but I think Stern is about nothing but the bottom line.

To me, it's similar to Google making concessions to the Chinese government about allowing them to have access to certain data to monitor: ultimately, they made a bottom line financial decision and weren't concerned with other principles, like about privacy and censorship.

 

Terrific.

 

And there we have it. Racism in it's most typical form.

 

You are right, there is a long history of attire oppression, men who were forced into wearing "white clothes" by racist employers... it has absolutely nothing to do with pride, self respect, or the knowledge that taking an interest in your appearance may effect the level of respect you garner from the rest of society.

 

No, it's not. Whenever they are representing the team or the league, they are at work. That includes pre and post game interviews, press conferences, practice, team functions, etc.

Frankly, I don't think it's racist at all (but I may be wrong). I think it's just good business - for BOTH the league and the players. The better, more professional the players look, the more likely they are to get endorsement deals. Think about it. If potential sponsors see a well-groomed, well-dressed articulate young man speaking during a post game interview they are much more likely to consider offereing him a lucrative endorsement deal than some guy dressed like a thug or a freak. And, again you may claim that racist, but I don't think it is. Would you offer Robert Swift or Chris Anderson millions of dollars to be your corportate spokesperson? Not unless you own a head shop or tatoo parlor.

BNM

 

Ahhh you youngin's make me laugh.....fight the evil powa!

Look I agree with you guys on one important subject, the freedom for the players to wear whatever they want.

BUT the point is, they're under contract and get paid a salary wage, and have stipulations that go along with the contract.
Dress code is one of them, and for good reason to as they are representing the company that is paying them.

If they want to dress in baggy jeans and Double XL hoodies on their own time, more power too them.

 

Ahh....too be young again

 

I too was once against the establishment; then I became the establishment. I suppose if I still wanted to smoke buds and wear polar fleece every day I could simply not work at a job that requires a dress code.

 

The funny thing is, these kids dont get it.

Does the president of the usa wear hoodies and baggy jeans? No. Why not? because, it's not professional. (the image)

It doesn't matter that yes, the President is a class act and is a upstanding human being in his own naked right, but the image he is displaying is of most importance to the people watching him.

Same goes for the people that watch the NBA players.

The universal image for professionalism, is the business suit. That is why they are required to uphold the dress code.

 

How quickly blazer fans forget...

This team/town/organization was the poster child for bad press, bad public relations, and bad public image. If you think an NBA players' job starts when they step on the court, you are sorely mistaken. An NBA players' job starts as soon as they are drafted. They live, eat, sleep, shit, etc etc etc NBA. They are paid multi-million dollar contracts to represent their team, their city, and the league. If they can't accept that, too fucking bad. Get out of the league. There are thousands of people who would love to have their job.

In this society, you can not afford to "be yourself" anymore. If you are a celebrity, and pretty much anyone who works in the public eye is considered a celebrity, then you better act like it. I don't blame Stern for imposing a dress code. These players represent his company, they are the face of the company, and if they come off as thugs, as gangsters, or as bad people in general, it hurts his profits. Don't believe me? Look at our own Portland Trail Blazers. This city turned its back on the team, in large part due to the public image of the players. Hell, we won't even trade for a guy if we think he has a bad reputation.

Wake up guys, the NBA is a product, and the players are paid accordingly. They are hardly getting screwed over, simply because they have to dress professionally while they are at work.

And no, the job doesn't just include stepping on a basketball court. Every team does public outreach. Things like helping at soup kitchens, visiting schools and hospitals, and talking to soldiers over seas. If the NBA wants their employees to look, act, and be professional, that's their prerogative. Personally, I don't blame them at all.

 

And I think it's very wrong and unfair to portray them as something that they're clearly not.

Besides, why can't you let each player decide for himself how his image will affect his marketability? A guy like Jerryd Bayless will, assuming that dressing "nice" sells, make much more than a meth addict like Chris Anderson. Personally, I'm sure there's also a market for guys with a "thug" image, just look at 50 Cent. What right does the NBA have to deny a player that image? And at what point does an employer's interests supersede those of an employee?

Also, +1 to everything Minstrel said, he wrote what I was thinking, just a million times more eloquently than I ever could've managed.

 

I don't see it as petty at all. The guy accused you of lying and also, for some unknown reason, decided to use your religion (or is it, don't know, don't care) as a point of debate.

I've been curious as to what the response to your initial posting of this would be as well.

 

I think you make some correct points here, but I don't think you're entirely correct in your implication that that's just how we are and it still has some value. While I certainly agree that prejudice is part of human nature as a successful evolutionary strategy, that's true of various other behaviours too, like men being absentee fathers (impregnating many women and not waiting around to father any of the children is optimal strategy for men to further their genes) and women marrying for security rather than love (since women incur a cost for having children--the pregnancy and the raising of children--they need to be as certain as they can of the fitness of their mate) that we don't consider very good behaviour today. There are quite a few evolutionary strategies that have served humans well but when humans are taken out of an evolutionary context, as we are in this society where almost no one competes for survival and reproduction, they are not suitable for a coherent and peaceful society. We are asked to rise above our "selfish" genetic programming to some extent when we live in society.

Further, I don't think it's accurate to brand a popular urban style as indication of being "outcast" and therefore a real indicator of danger. It's really more of a false syllogism: 1. Lots of poor, black males dress in a certain style, 2. Lots of poor, black males commit crimes...therefore 3. That style indicates criminal behaviour. That sort of correlation isn't actually very useful, because the causal link is non-existent. Dressing that way doesn't cause people to commit crime. Enough people who don't commit crimes dress that way to make even the correlation between the style and criminal behaviour very, very weak. This is an example of prejudice that is not particularly useful in today's society, IMO, that quite a few people don't bother rising above. They give in to snap judgments which leads to somewhat irrational worldview.

Now, is the NBA best served catering to this quirk of human nature? Financially, probably so. Whether other principles should be in play is, I suppose, up to the opinion of each individual person. I certainly agree Stern had the right to make such a rule.

 

Easy, the instant the employer signs the paycheck.

But hey, it's still a free country. If the employee doesn't like the terms of employeement, they can always quit and seek employment elsewhere.

What could be more "American" than that? Nobody forces anyone to sign an NBA contract. It's a matter of choice and a mutually agreed upon contract between both the employer and the employee. The NBA players have a very powerful union representing their interests. That union agreed to the dress code clause in the contract - or it wouldn't be there. Those who get paid to look out for the players best interests did not object to the dress code. Why should we? It's good for both the league and the players.

BNM

 

Right. If you mean "stereotypes" essentially as ability to do pattern-matching, then it's absolutely a huge positive. It's basically the entire driver of human intelligence, the strength we have that machines can't yet touch.

I originally took your use of "stereotypes" to be the more limited form of prejudice. "I've seen bears kill five people, I won't trust any bears." Very, very useful sort of mechanism in the wild, not so useful in a human society.

Very well put.