Right- Rome did not, strictly speaking, use the kind of loaded question to which “Have you stopped beating your wife?” is typically used. However it’s a stupid and pointless question that Stern probably got tired of answering 20 years ago. I suppose these two deserve to have to put up with each other.
There is independent supervision, yes. And it’s also hard to understand why some of the teams would put up with deliberately being screwed. The teams themselves do not seem to object to the draft process, it’s just the fans who are quick to accuse the NBA of fixing it when they see the results. That’s a very strong hint the process is fair even though the NBA could make the whole thing public.
Stern had to know that Rome would be asking that kind of question. I haven’t listened to Rome in years, and I remember him complaining that until he saw a ping pong ball popping out of of the machine like in a real lottery, he wouldn’t believe that the fix was in. Stern’s response was more dickish that Rome’s question, and it takes a lot to out dick Rome.
A better way to ask the question would be “What verification do we have that the draft lottery isn’t fixed?” but I don’t even expect a reasonable question like that from a real sports writer.
A better response would be “No, it’s not fixed. Here’s how we make sure, and here’s how you know…”
That’s still very loaded wording. A more neutral question would be something like “Can you tell us what the NBA does to make sure the draft lottery is independent and why fans should trust it?”
The worst part of that interview was Rome backpedaling and acting like a sniveling wimp after. The initial question was OK, Stern’s response was harsh but understandable. After that Rome just turned into a lump of jello and gave up any hope of a useful interview.
The draft lottery being fixed idea is, IMO, based on the mathematical/statistical, incompetence of most people. While the worst team has the best chance to win of any of the teams, it does not have a good chance of winning. This year the Hornets had a 1 in 4 chance of winning,but some folks seem to think they should have been the winner because everybody else’s odds were worse.
Even though I think conspiracy theories are silly, the question itself was not out of line.
Instead of getting huffy, the commissioner COULD and SHOULD have had a simple, rational refutation of the conspiracists ready. Like:
“If we try to steer stars to big markets, why did we let the San Antonio Spurs get David Robinson and Tim Duncan? Why did we let Glenn Robinson and Andrew Bogut go to Milwaukee? Why did we let Charlotte take Larry Johnson, and how did Sacramento get Pervis Ellison? Really, apart from Patrick Ewing, name me some #1 picks that went to big market, marquee teams.”
That wasn’t the accusation. The accusation was that the process is fixed. The 1985 draft is often used as an example, but so is LeBron going to “hometown” Cleveland in 2003 and the top pick going to New Orleans this year.
Oh, but I think it’s a HUGE implied part of the accusation. HUGE.
In the very first NBA lottery, the biggest star went to New York. That alone was enough to convince numerous fans that the fix was in. The fact that no marquee team has gotten such a lucky break since doesn’t seem to have subdued the suspicions that Ewing aroused.
But it’s not the whole accusation. So if he’s addressed only part of it, people who buy into this crap would’ve said he was dodging the question and perhaps tacitly acknowledging the NBA has steered star prospects to non-huge markets, as they say it did with LeBron and Anthony Davis. This is what happens when you try to deal rationally with nuts. It doesn’t work.
What I meant was the commissioner’s office going behind the backs of the team owners. Yes, the commissioner is their collective employee, but if something underhanded is going on that favors one team over another, it makes more sense that he’s doing it behind the backs of the owners than to say that…
Why would any team owners agree to throw high draft picks to someone else to their own team’s detriment?
You’re right. I put about 30 seconds of thought into mine. I would hope that somebody with the opportunity to interview Stern would put more thought into it. I suspect Rome put some thought into how to ask the question. I want a more respected sports journalist to ask the same question so Stern can’t brush it off as Rome being Rome. (Calling Rome a journalist is like calling the talking heads on politics journalists. They’re entertainment and opinion.)
I’ve since listened to the audio from the interview, and I’m shocked at how reasonably Rome explained why he was asking after Stern gave him the “No, and shame on you for asking.”
I didn’t think I would ever have predicted Rome would sound like the more reasonable participant in that interview, and yet I do.
Acsenray was saying that if the NBA lottery is fixed, the teams are in on it. And yes, it beggars belief to say the Bobcats and Nets would have been OK with getting the short end of the straw in this draft. Charlotte was historically awful this year and could’ve really used a potential star and franchise lynchpin like Davis, and Brooklyn desperately wanted that pick to convince Deron Williams to stay and/or deal for Dwight Howard. In any case, the draft lottery drawing is conducted in front of representatives of all 14 lottery teams as well as independent auditors. And if it isn’t, there’s no word on why all the teams would agree to lie about it.
Exactly.
And yet that’s all he came up with. Stern didn’t have to respond the way he did, but it was a stupid question and one he has to be sick of answering. Answering in a levelheaded manner is better, but we should all know by now that addressing this kind of stuff that way doesn’t make it go away.
That is exactly what is wrong with the question in the first place. If I know the actual mechanism for the lottery (I barely pay attention to basketball anymore) then Jim Rome sure as hell does. The ping pong ball machine is exactly how they pick the teams. Representatives from each team are there. 4 journalists from various outlets are there. Independent auditors are there. The balls come out of the machine and the order is verified. The announcement is able an hour later. None of those in the room are allowed out until the annoucement is made. Those that are on the lottery show do not know the outcome till announced. No one raised any objections when the lottery happened. Jim Rome knows this. He phrased the question dishonestly in order to get a reaction.
Seriously, it just seems en vogue to call Rome a douchebag, but I wonder how many people who hold that opinion actually listen to the show? The Jim Everett thing was years ago - what, nearly 20? He was a 20-something sports guy and did something stupid - in front of a lot of viewers. He never ducks that, in fact, he even made a joke about it on the show yesterday.
I get that the show isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. But I can’t stand Dan Patrick and his stupid “Danettes” schtick, plus he’s always name dropping. We get it, you used to work for ESPN, you know famous athletes. Cowherd sounds like a whiney gasbag that’s trying to do the political talk. The ESPN figures are so incredibly bland that I can’t tell them apart. (Scott Van Pelt?)
So for me, I like the Rome mix of sports and pop culture, and the involvement of the audience. You can certainly think they’re tools or take it with a pinch of salt, but it’s funny most of the time. I even keep the show on when he’s discussing a sport I don’t particularly follow. I also think he does a good job with the guests, as compared to other hosts. Athletes seem much more at ease and relaxed on his show.
But anyway I digress… Stern sounded like a pompous ass, it was apparent he was cranky, and I appreciate that Rome didn’t back down and kiss his ass. Rome often asks questions that fans would ask. He didn’t state the question as “Hey I think the fix is in,” and when Stern balked, he said he understood his response. In fact, it was a softball that Stern could have easily knocked out of the park and moved on. Rome was initially respectful of Stern’s hedge, but when it got nasty, he scored some licks of his own. And it was particularly assholish of Stern to talk about Rome’s show being so lowbrow, especially since he’s on it on a fairly regular basis.
A caller noted that now Rome is off ESPN, perhaps Stern felt he didn’t have to deal with Rome. Like he went on the show under duress for the past several years, and now Rome is completely free of the Disney/ABC family, it’s okay to be a dick. Which makes Stern more of a dick, of course.
Vogue, excuse me? We’re not capable of forming our own opinions? For the record, I hated Rome long before I knew anybody else hated them. In fact, I had reason to believe that they liked him, given that they were always listening to his show.
Certainly, but generally the claims of Rome-hate are based on stuff he did twenty years ago. I get that he’s not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea, but he’s not racist, sexist, homophobic, doesn’t take cheap shots, and in my mind, fairly entertaining.
I’m not saying this solely about Dopers, it’s something I see a lot out there.
Stern didn’t have to respond the way he did, but it was a stupid question and one he has to be sick of answering. Answering in a levelheaded manner is better, but we should all know by now that addressing this kind of stuff that way doesn’t make it go away.