LBJ: “We both tried to will our team to victory and, just like Dominique Wilkins, I ended up on the short end and the Celtics won again. I think the second round of the postseason, Game 7, these fans will finally have an opportunity to forget a little bit about what Larry Bird and Dominique Wilkins did and remember what Paul and LeBron did. This will go down in history.”

Yeah, go down in history perhaps as the game that most typified the demise of the modern NBA. What incredible hubris. The only similarities between that game 7 and this one are the court size and the length of the game. Larry Bird in that game was the top scorer for the Celtics by only one point (McHale had 33). Three other Celtics scored in double figures, four Hawks beside ‘Nique were also in double figures. Yesterday only two other players in total, from both teams, scored more than ten.

This was not a game of high flying excellence, this was a game that so typifies the complete lack of fundamental basketball skills shown by today’s superstar players (and coaches, more on that below) that it will surely become iconic, not for what is good about the modern game, but for all that it lacks.

There was little defense played. Yes, perhaps a majority of the players who never bother actually tried to get into the passing lanes, but no one, other than perhaps Ben Wallace (more on that below too), actually defended. Still, even token efforts were enough to completely discombobulate the two offenses. The Celtics / Hawks game 7 was no defensive gem either (Hawks shot 57%, Celtics 61%), mostly because those players could hit wide open jump shots, which no one on either team yesterday could so. That’s not pressure, that’s not strong defense, that’s just bad offense, and bad fundamentals.

Offensive schemes were by and large omitted from yesterday’s game plan anyway. The few times LBJ and Brown allowed the Cavs to actually run plays, they were quite successful – a couple of open dunks by Ben Wallace, a couple of open jumpers from Z, some nice cuts by West. But, Brown treated his offensive sets as things to be used occasionally, to deflect attention from LBJ and his one on five drives time after time after time. At least this time the officials weren’t bailing James out every single drive (perhaps those days are over after the James and Wade officiating fiascos of the past several years?), but he still managed 19 free throws, mostly because no one on the Celtics can defend.

Brown doesn’t coach, he points LBJ towards one hoop or the other. But, at least he didn’t seem to be actively trying to throw the game, as Doc Rivers certainly seemed to be in the fourth. Despite Pierce seemingly able to get whatever he wanted, and shooting over 50%, the Celtics only manage to get him three shots in the fourth. Rather, they throw the ball into Garnett in the post against Ben Wallace time after time. At the best of times KG wouldn’t recognize a post move if he saw one, and against Ben isn’t the best of times. You could see the wheels turning in Doc’s head… “Gee, Wallace didn’t let him get a shot off that time. Huh. Let’s try again. Oh, he stopped him again, well, third time’s the charm. Man, that didn’t work either. What to do? I know, KG in the post!”

And the Cavs? When they missed a late shot and desperately needed to foul to stop the clock, only Ben Wallace had any notion of the time / situation in the game. He sprinted from under one hoop all the way down the floor, passing three other Cavs, to foul and stop the clock. LBJ was standing at the other end watching, no doubt chewing on his nails. That is a complete breakdown… of coaching.

Nice game from the announcers though. JVG was dead on a number of times, both pointing out fouls that were flagrant-one’s that weren’t called (both were right I thought), as well as pointing out LBJ travels, and his utter cluelessness on defense.

Bah humbug. I have seen the future of the NBA and it is bleak.

I agree with most of what you said, dba. The LeBron/Pierce show was pretty brutal. LeBron repeatedly would dribble up to the three-point line, spot the double team and then back the ball out to near mid-court to set up the clear out. He scored half their points and there was little semblance of an offense from the Cavs.

Going down to KG wasn't such a bad idea. KG is a decent FT shooter (80 percent); maybe they were hoping for some trips to the line. KG can also shoot over Big Ben, which he did a couple times.

Also, in fairness, Detroit's defense on LeBron last season was much worse than what the Celtics did yesterday.

But, you're dead on with your overall premise about where the NBA is going. It was unbelievably boring to watch most of that game. There was absolutely zero suspense for such a close game.

I wonder if it is also a West vs East issue. Seems like Western conference teams are more complete. Or possibly it is just bad management loading up roster with bad contracts and not being able to improve. But I have to agree, the game gets pretty weak.

I think a lot has to do with players coming straight out of high school or to the league with minimal college experience and no real training in the fundamentals of the game.

I propose that every player who wants to play in the NBA has to spend two years in a development league. And that the development league has some unique rules...

- no dunks
- 1.5 points for non-assisted baskets, 2 or 3 for assisted baskets
- refs drilled on calling any and all traveling, carrying the ball, etc.
- take a point away for every flop and return the ball to the offense
- each player's ultimate NBA salary for the first three years is pegged to their development Sprocket Points ranking.

I think a lot has to do with players coming straight out of high school or to the league with minimal college experience and no real training in the fundamentals of the game.

I propose that every player who wants to play in the NBA has to spend two years in a development league. And that the development league has some unique rules...

- no dunks
- 1.5 points for non-assisted baskets, 2 or 3 for assisted baskets
- refs drilled on calling any and all traveling, carrying the ball, etc.
- take a point away for every flop and return the ball to the offense
- each player's ultimate NBA salary for the first three years is pegged to their development Sprocket Points ranking.

I agree with most of what you say in theory.... making kids go to college for one year is a joke... they take a couple easy classes the first semester and don't even have to show up to a single class second semester while there playing....

I'd like to see the age requirement bumped up by a year... and add an option to go straight to the farm systems... change the draft so you retain rights while there at college/minor leagues and find some way that the kids in college can get paid.... say there salary goes into a trust fund that can't touch till after there 2 years are done?

To many kids start in the pro's and have to be taught the most basics of concepts... I commented on Howard last week, he's just a waste of a phyical master. if he had spent two years at a solid program learning to post up, they would be a far better team right now then they would have been againt us.

I agree with most of what you say in theory.... making kids go to college for one year is a joke... they take a couple easy classes the first semester and don't even have to show up to a single class second semester while there playing....

Hey, I'm out here in fantasy land anyway - it's all theoretical. But yeah, it isn't about college. It's not the responsibilty of colleges to teach budding NBA players how to play. They have enough trouble teaching kids to read and write.

I'd like to see the age requirement bumped up by a year... and add an option to go straight to the farm systems... change the draft so you retain rights while there at college/minor leagues and find some way that the kids in college can get paid.... say there salary goes into a trust fund that can't touch till after there 2 years are done?

This is off the top of my head, but I wonder how the league can get away with the age requirement they currently have. I suspect that if a player decided to challenge the restriction in court they would probably win. After all, it's not as if 18 year olds have not succeeded in the NBA before. It would seem pretty hard for the league to make a real argument that the job of player itself requires a certain age. (A farm system as you describe would get around the legal problems.)


To many kids start in the pro's and have to be taught the most basics of concepts... I commented on Howard last week, he's just a waste of a phyical master. if he had spent two years at a solid program learning to post up, they would be a far better team right now then they would have been againt us.

Part of the problem I think is that once players are earning millions (and being told how good they are), it's hard to get them to listen to coaching. Really, why would you? You need some system that puts everyone on a more level field and stresses learning.

By the way. How can rental car companies get away with the minimal 25 year age limit to rent a car? Has that never been challenged?

You have 24 year olds out there who own their own businesses, yet can't take a rental car when they travel on business?

I can see the age being 18 vs. 16, but 25 seems like blatent age discrimination. Is their any other product or service that has a similar restriction (besides alcohol)?

Insurance is weird. I think the courts have tended to favor actuarial work that shows younger drivers have higher accident rates. And, there is no right written into law to rent a car. There are anti-discrimination laws about employment.

Insurance is weird. I think the courts have tended to favor actuarial work that shows younger drivers have higher accident rates. And, there is no right written into law to rent a car. There are anti-discrimination laws about employment.

Could a rental car company choose to not rent to black people if they had higher accident rates? Obviously, the answer is no. I guess my question is, why can they discriminate with age when they can't with race, sex, or many other factors.

I would guess that the answer is that people under 25 have not banded together to challenge it... or there hasn't been an attorney who has taken up the class action suit yet.

Could a rental car company choose to not rent to black people if they had higher accident rates? Obviously, the answer is no. I guess my question is, why can they discriminate with age when they can't with race, sex, or many other factors.

I would guess that the answer is that people under 25 have not banded together to challenge it... or there hasn't been an attorney who has taken up the class action suit yet.

I've been reading a book by a UM scholar on the construction of rights and the arguments are pretty interesting. Race (and gender, national origin, etc.) is a special category that sort of over-rides other classifications regardless of whether they have some kind of validity or not. But, just because someone cannot discriminate on the basis of race doesn't mean that they can't discriminate on some other basis (as long as that basis doesn't tend to end up eliminating the same groups as would be excluded if using race).

For this it seems to me (with all of sixty or so pages of legal knowledge) you could argue that although the statistical stereotype is true (younger drivers have on average more accidents), it should not burden particular individuals who may or may not themselves have a true higher propensity to crash into someone. Given though that the precedent for granting or denying (or charging more) insurance coverage based on statistical stereotypes is pretty well established, you might have the deck stacked against you.

Given though that the precedent for granting or denying (or charging more) insurance coverage based on statistical stereotypes is pretty well established, you might have the deck stacked against you.

To me, that would open the door for them to price discriminate. Charge 50% more for drivers under the age of 25 or something like that. I just find it unbelievable that you can own Google at the age of 24, fly to Orlando to meet with a company that you are considering acquiring, and you can't even drive yourself to the meeting because Hertz won't rent to you.

I guess I'll have to look up the history and see if this practice was ever challenged.

With this and the drinking age at 21, I'm really surprised that the law allows for 16 year olds to drive.

I could see where rental car companies wouldn't want to rent to Canadians due to the whole "driving on the wrong side of the road" thing. :canada:

(I officially apologize for this diversion, but this should be my final post on rental cars).

OK, did a little research. It looks like it was challenged in NY and the rental car companies were forced to rent to 18-24 year olds afterward.


Effects of People v. Alamo Rent A Car on Current Law
The Alamo court interpreted N.Y. General Business Law § 391-g (gopher://lbdc.senate.state.ny.us/00/.laws/General%20Business/.GBS391) to require car rental companies to rent to drivers under twenty-five based on the finding that the NYAIP was "available" insurance under the statute. The lack of comprehensive coverage under NYAIP for damage to rental vehicles concerned Appellant rental car agencies because of the greater frequency and severity of accidents among younger drivers. The court remained unmoved by these concerns. The statute's language suggested no intent to provide rental car companies with full insurance to cover all risks. Instead, the court determined that the language of the statute suggested that added costs for additional coverage could be passed on to the younger renters.


In the future, rental agencies cannot refuse to rent to those over eighteen years of age. People v. Alamo Rent A Car, Inc. forecloses the argument that the statute was meant to fully protect rental car companies from the risks of renting to younger drivers and emphasizes the non-discriminatory intent of the legislature.

Unanswered Questions
The court states that the legislative history supports the view that the provision creates a safe harbor for rental companies -- that it is not discriminatory to charge young drivers more to offset the costs of added insurance. Thus, car rental companies can pass on the cost of additional insurance to young renters. The court does not address the situation where the car rental companies want to charge young drivers the total cost of additional insurance for injury to drivers, third parties, and third party property damage. Also, the court does not place limits on the amount that drivers may be charged for such insurance.

Survey of the Law in Other Jurisdictions
At this time, New York appears to be the only state in which the issue of age discrimination in the car rental industry has been litigated. Although Connecticut is considering legislation similar to New York's, no other state has made age discrimination unlawful for the rental car industry. John Caher, Court Lifts Age Barrier in Car Rental Business, Times Union (Albany, N.Y.), Main, March 28, 1997. It is unclear why other states have yet to follow New York's statutory protection of young drivers.
A directly opposite view to this type of legislation is taken by the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia's legislation, passed through both Houses of Congress, specifically allows age discrimination in such cases: "It shall not be an unlawful practice for a motor vehicle rental company to fail or refuse to rent a motor vehicle, or to impose differential terms and conditions upon the rental of a motor vehicle, based on the age of any person, where such action is reasonably related to accident risk or threat of public safety." District of Columbia Code 1981, § 1-2534.

liibulletin: People v. Alamo Rent A Car (http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/comments/i97_0044.htm)

So I guess the conclusion is that it might very well be unlawful, but has only been challenged in NY and D.C.

(I officially apologize for this diversion, but this should be my final post on rental cars).

OK, did a little research. It looks like it was challenged in NY and the rental car companies were forced to rent to 18-24 year olds afterward.



liibulletin: People v. Alamo Rent A Car (http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/comments/i97_0044.htm)

So I guess the conclusion is that it might very well be unlawful, but has only been challenged in NY and D.C.

Yeah, generally you can rent at 21, but you pay an extra fee per rental day until you're 25.

WELL SAID DBA.

Lebron and Pierce in a shoot out with the refs thrown in. If this is the NBA's future it is dead.

LBJ: “We both tried to will our team to victory and, just like Dominique Wilkins, I ended up on the short end and the Celtics won again. I think the second round of the postseason, Game 7, these fans will finally have an opportunity to forget a little bit about what Larry Bird and Dominique Wilkins did and remember what Paul and LeBron did. This will go down in history.”

Yeah, go down in history perhaps as the game that most typified the demise of the modern NBA. What incredible hubris. The only similarities between that game 7 and this one are the court size and the length of the game. Larry Bird in that game was the top scorer for the Celtics by only one point (McHale had 33). Three other Celtics scored in double figures, four Hawks beside ‘Nique were also in double figures. Yesterday only two other players in total, from both teams, scored more than ten.

This was not a game of high flying excellence, this was a game that so typifies the complete lack of fundamental basketball skills shown by today’s superstar players (and coaches, more on that below) that it will surely become iconic, not for what is good about the modern game, but for all that it lacks.

There was little defense played. Yes, perhaps a majority of the players who never bother actually tried to get into the passing lanes, but no one, other than perhaps Ben Wallace (more on that below too), actually defended. Still, even token efforts were enough to completely discombobulate the two offenses. The Celtics / Hawks game 7 was no defensive gem either (Hawks shot 57%, Celtics 61%), mostly because those players could hit wide open jump shots, which no one on either team yesterday could so. That’s not pressure, that’s not strong defense, that’s just bad offense, and bad fundamentals.

Offensive schemes were by and large omitted from yesterday’s game plan anyway. The few times LBJ and Brown allowed the Cavs to actually run plays, they were quite successful – a couple of open dunks by Ben Wallace, a couple of open jumpers from Z, some nice cuts by West. But, Brown treated his offensive sets as things to be used occasionally, to deflect attention from LBJ and his one on five drives time after time after time. At least this time the officials weren’t bailing James out every single drive (perhaps those days are over after the James and Wade officiating fiascos of the past several years?), but he still managed 19 free throws, mostly because no one on the Celtics can defend.

Brown doesn’t coach, he points LBJ towards one hoop or the other. But, at least he didn’t seem to be actively trying to throw the game, as Doc Rivers certainly seemed to be in the fourth. Despite Pierce seemingly able to get whatever he wanted, and shooting over 50%, the Celtics only manage to get him three shots in the fourth. Rather, they throw the ball into Garnett in the post against Ben Wallace time after time. At the best of times KG wouldn’t recognize a post move if he saw one, and against Ben isn’t the best of times. You could see the wheels turning in Doc’s head… “Gee, Wallace didn’t let him get a shot off that time. Huh. Let’s try again. Oh, he stopped him again, well, third time’s the charm. Man, that didn’t work either. What to do? I know, KG in the post!”

And the Cavs? When they missed a late shot and desperately needed to foul to stop the clock, only Ben Wallace had any notion of the time / situation in the game. He sprinted from under one hoop all the way down the floor, passing three other Cavs, to foul and stop the clock. LBJ was standing at the other end watching, no doubt chewing on his nails. That is a complete breakdown… of coaching.

Nice game from the announcers though. JVG was dead on a number of times, both pointing out fouls that were flagrant-one’s that weren’t called (both were right I thought), as well as pointing out LBJ travels, and his utter cluelessness on defense.

Bah humbug. I have seen the future of the NBA and it is bleak.

Great post.

What you saw was the concept of the extended media spectacle. Delusional emphasis on rampant individualism.

An individual exhibition on parade led by two very bad coaches.

I just re-read this and that first paragraph is a Lebron quote?

Get over yourself Lebron.lol
That is Pierce arrogant.

I agree that ( great article by the way ) that the pre-age rules desimated the talent but we should be recovering from that by now.

I see a few things going against us.

1) Expansion, there are almost double the teams now since Wilkins/Bird squared off.

2) Age of the mega-contract. Teams are spending over half their cap space on 2 players. This does not leave much over for the rest of the team and a lot of guys are signing oversees now rather than taking a 1 year min contract deal.

3) Foreign influence. Touched on above. Are we getting more talent or losing more? It almost seems like more US players are going oversees than foreign ones comming here. Why sign a 1 year deal when you can get 5 years at double the amt each year in Europe? Are we getting the guys who can't cut it over there to fill our benches with?

Whoa....I was on board with you there until....

- no dunks

C'mon man....two words: Dominique Wilkins

- 1.5 points for non-assisted baskets, 2 or 3 for assisted baskets

I'm not so sure fans will be to interested in a 92.5 to 92 final score. You think there are conspiracy theories now....just wait

- take a point away for every flop and return the ball to the offense

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure we want to set rules based on the always measurable "intent" or player thought process. You can't call fouls based on assuming a guy intended to fall down. I'm sure we can agree that there's no way to keep this from being used to single out players who have been judged in the always objective court of public or referee opinion to be "floppers." Besides, I'm no fan of giving the Kobes and Lebrons of the world carte blanche to just run guys over expecting to get a call or at least have the other team penalized by some arbitrary "flopping" rule.


- each player's ultimate NBA salary for the first three years is pegged to their development Sprocket Points ranking.

So, do they get $0 for the first year? You don't have any meaningful stats before they play their first game and I'm no fan of bailing out owners because they aren't smart enough NOT to pay millions more than they should for unproven talent. If they want to ruin their franchises every 5 years, that's their problem.

Telling players they won't get any money for the 1st 3 years won't solve anything. A players personality is what it is and he's going to be the same guy regardless. Guys will still make it their goal to hit the NBA "big time." The fact that there are 18,000 willing to pay $20 to $50 a pop to fill an arena makes the money available and it's just a matter of who gets it and when.

I'd like to add a rule that says that timeouts can only be called in deadball situations.

I'd like to add a rule that says that timeouts can only be called in deadball situations.

Flip already does that anyway.

I think a lot has to do with players coming straight out of high school or to the league with minimal college experience and no real training in the fundamentals of the game.

I propose that every player who wants to play in the NBA has to spend two years in a development league. And that the development league has some unique rules...

- no dunks
- 1.5 points for non-assisted baskets, 2 or 3 for assisted baskets
- refs drilled on calling any and all traveling, carrying the ball, etc.
- take a point away for every flop and return the ball to the offense
- each player's ultimate NBA salary for the first three years is pegged to their development Sprocket Points ranking.

I like this idea dba. The only reason it works for me is that these would be a 2 year development league rules. Development of good habits for fairer and more watchable NBA basketball in the future. And it would be way fun if NBATV televised this "minor" league action so that we could watch the future NBA superstars, stars and scrubs DEVELOP. The last one I'm not sure about. It sounds like you are saying that their NBA rookie contracts would be dependent on their success in the NBA PlayTheSprocketWay Development League performance. Yeah, I'm even on board for this one.

- each player's ultimate NBA salary for the first three years is pegged to their development Sprocket Points ranking.
That's a really good idea. Now remind me, how many sprocket points do you get for flexing after throwing down a monster dunk?

I'd like to add a rule that says that timeouts can only be called in deadball situations.
I hate it that players can avoid getting called for a jump ball by calling a timeout as soon as they realize they are in trouble. Guys are diving onto the floor, and the player who is about to lose the possession is making sad eyes and pleading for the ref to bail him out. Yuck.

Since 2000 up to nowadays, USA has been sucking hard in international games. Call it lack of *whatever reason u want*, for some reason (not a strange one, though) USA has not been able to win a championship since 2000. That last champion team had: Kidd, Payton, Hardaway, McDyess, Mourning, Carter and Garnett.
Then failures followed one after another one with guys like: Duncan, Baron Davis, Miller, Ben Wallace, J. O'Neal, Iverson, Wade-James-Anthony, Stat, Howard, Bosh, Paul.

I cant say why, but certainly this happened when some countries reduced the stretch they had with USA, and it seems United States can't go any further. In 2002 (W.Championship) and 2004 Olympics they were beated by Argentina (damn man, we rock), and in 2006 by Greece! Let me say that again... BY GREECE, A COUNTRY THAT HAS THE MOTTO: "We shoot bricks... in every single sport!". Someway they couldn't make more than 50 points in the final against Spain without Gasol, go figure.

The point that im trying to make is that USA has already reached the zenith (Dream Teams) and now it's experiencing a let-down, because you compare it with previous b-ball legends. Add to it that other countries became smarter at playing it (Germany, Spain and Puerto Rico, for example), and you have a time-bomb waiting for explode... or it just did, in 2002.

This happens in every sport, after Maradona-era for Argentina's soccer has been atrocious, as after '90s World Cup, we werent able to go any further than quarter finals. Just for citing an example.

And dont be surprised if they dont get the 1st spot again this next Olympics.

Whoa....I was on board with you there until....

Remember, these are rules suggestions for the development league, not the big league.

I'd like to add a rule that says that timeouts can only be called in deadball situations.

How about continuous play? Subs on the fly.

That's a really good idea. Now remind me, how many sprocket points do you get for flexing after throwing down a monster dunk?


That would be your two.