Post by Kasey on Feb 16, 2014 11:07:18 GMT -8
February 16, 2014
Commissioner Adam Silver,
Happy All-Star Weekend. I know this is a time for you and the National Basketball Association to showcase the league in several events, not the least of which is the 63rd annual All-Star Game. I know this is a busy weekend for you; being that it is your first in your current position. Be that as it may, I believe the words I write should be particular interest to you as you begin your tenure as commissioner of the NBA.
Please first allow me to introduce myself. My name is Kassandra. Originally from Portland, Oregon, I am a senior in college, about a quarter-and-a-half away from earning degrees in political science and American history. I also will complete the pre-law program which was set up through my counselor prior to my enrollment three-and-a-half years ago. As I mentioned, I am from Portland. As you may imagine, I am a longtime Trail Blazers fan. In fact, I have been watching and discussing my team and the NBA with my family (including my father and four athletically minded brothers) for nearly two decades. Social media has allowed me to talk with countless fans and I have written over 100 blogs on the former Blazers Blogger Network. Suffice to say, I consider myself very knowledgeable in regards to the Portland Trail Blazers and to the National Basketball Association.
It is with this background and knowledge that I would appreciate your attention as I discuss with you some issues regarding the NBA.
I believe parity -- or lack there of -- will always be an issue which will challenge, and even haunt at times, any professional sports league. I also believe that there is no sports league which fails to achieve unilateral parity as the NBA. This comes down to revenue, promotion, fair play and officiating.
Only someone shortsighted would not recognize that the NBA is a business. The need for parity in revenue across the league is paramount. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know here. It's my feeling that when striving for parity, this is the area in which the NBA is the strongest. Certainly, you wish each of the 30 franchise to make money. Obviously, that is what the owners wish as well. On this front, I would only suggest the revenue sharing model which is being used by the National Football League. I'm not so much going to talk more about this here as I will touch on it in my further comments.
The NBA does a tremendous job of promoting some teams. On the other hand, it does a horrendous job of promoting others. During the most-recently completed season, 2012-13, the broadcast partners announced their schedules prior to the season. The second-largest market team, the Los Angeles Lakers, were awarded with 27 nationally televised games. One of the smallest markets in the league, the Charlotte Bobcats, were awarded zero. As someone who wishes to be exposed to all 30 of the teams and all 450 players in the NBA, this is completely unacceptable. Would a game between the Kings and the Bucks not be as competitive as a game between the Heat and the Thunder? As a college student, League Pass for me at school is not a financial option (like the NBA, I have to spend my money wisely). Many others cannot purchase League Pass for other reasons. I recognize that the broadcast schedule was not by your personal arrangement. However, if you want parity (in addition to increased sales of merchandise), all teams need to be exposed to all NBA fans. Using the market models above, I have to ask the question: How will a connoisseur of NBA merchandise purchase a Kemba Walker jersey if they are not exposed to the Bobcats? Ensuring all NBA teams are exposed nationally to all NBA fans will only grow the appreciation of the entire league and, as illustrated, will lead to increased merchandise sales. That's more popularity and more revenue. I understand that to be your goal.
Fair play is a vague term. The direction in which I'm pointing with it is that all players and all teams must abide by the same guidelines; on and off the court. Specifically, I believe this comes down to league enforcement. When the league evaluates players for rule violations such as flopping, it needs to levy consistent fines/suspensions to each player. This means superstars and players from a large market must be forced to abide by the same guidelines as role players and those from smaller markets. However, this rule is not working from an enforcement standpoint. When I say it's not working, I am saying that it has not become the deterrent that it originally was meant to be. The NBA would be doing it's players, teams, owners and fans a huge service if it adopted FIBA's in-game rule of a technical foul when a player flops. It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out whether a player flopped on a particular play and it would serve as an immediate in-game punishment for conduct which really has no business on an NBA court. Instant replay already allows officials to examine the status of flagrant and clear path fouls. It would only be consistent to include flopping under the same umbrella of instant replay. Mind you, flopping is just one example of the category of fair play. I imagine, like myself, you can come up with many others.
When the word officiating is mentioned, we all know that is a huge can of worms. Let me prepare you in advance: I am about to open that can. This is an area in which I believe your predecessor completely failed. In my opinion (and that of countless others), David Stern used an unwritten rule to the officials to promote large market teams and superstars. I understand the NBA's line on this is denial. However, the results speak for themselves and they are loud and clear. When the great majority of championship winning teams are from large markets or involve superstars, it's not difficult to understand the fans' frustrations are justified.
I'm going to once more pick on the Lakers a little bit, as they are a team which has been considered to be the beneficiary of this atrocious officiating standard. Of the Lakers fans with whom I've conversed casually on the lack of parity in officiating, there is about a 50-50 split among their reactions. Half deny their team is not the beneficiary of favoritism of officiating. The other half freely admit that they get the calls, stating something to the extent of: "We get the calls, but we should because we're from L.A."
Large-market teams with superstars such as the Lakers have been repeatedly handed success via the league's line on officiating, as well as the officials themselves. This was done in order to promote the league. This involves Stern's promotion of the NBA from a marketing sense. From the standpoint of integrity for the game of basketball, Stern's marketing success was an ends which most definitely does not justify its means.
The other monstrosity in regards to officiating in the NBA is the clear bias of some of the officials themselves. After years of working as an official there are several who have developed a clear bias either for certain players or against other players. Denials of this can sound good in sound bites, but in reality, the denials fall on deaf ears. I'm going to cite the example of Rasheed Wallace from about 15 years ago. It was very well documented at the time that Wallace, who was leading the league in technical fouls, was cited for a number of technicals for what I might describe as "reputation technicals." This where, following a play, Wallace would be called for a technical for a confused look or merely shaking his head (not toward the officials, however). This is the bias of which I speak. Perhaps some of the officials, including some still working today, have just been around too long.
Regardless of whether you, I or others believe this to be true, this is a legitimate issue. If it is only by perception, then it is that perception which will continue to haunt the NBA until the league changes that perception. As I see it, this can be done in only one of two ways:
1. Complete, meaning 100 percent, transparency in the penalties to each and every official, each and every time such a penalty is imposed. The NBA, on its own website, announces when players receive penalties for flopping and other indiscretions. If an official makes a mistake, then the transparency of allowing the media or the fan to analyze which officials are receiving disciplinary action is not only appropriate, but it is absolutely necessary. Fines and suspensions to players -- and the announcement of those fines and suspensions -- are meant as a deterrent to the players of further indiscretions. The same should apply to officials. Should they not be further deterred from making biased and intentionally erroneous calls during a game? I believe the answer to this to be clear.
2. Replace all NBA officials with an independent cast of basketball officials, perhaps through FIBA or another organization tasked with fairness in sports. This would be independent of the NBA and could very well foster a new era of fairness in officiating. This would obviously be done by contract and, if the result is less than satisfactory, could be changed when the contract expires. The benefit of this is that you would have a fresh crop of officials to call things evenly from play to play, from quarter to quarter and from game to game. At this point, that is an absolute necessity for the NBA.
The only way to reverse the lack of parity in NBA officiating is to make one of these changes. In the least, it would show that you are committed to fixing the problem which the majority agrees exists. With that, I will close up that can of worms.
As this is All-Star Weekend, I'd like to take a moment to mention fan voting. With a scant few objections, fan voting for all-star selections, as well as honors such as "dunker of the night," is a massive failure. I recognize that this can be deemed as a way to involve fans and I get that. I believe involving fans is a great thing. However, when fans continue to vote in large market players and superstars who are not deserved of those starting spots, there is an issue. Let's face it, the larger the market, the more voters there are from that market to vote in their players. My personal opinion is that being selected by the opposing coaches in your conference is a much, much higher honor than being voted by fans in a popularity vote. Though I believe you will not eliminate fan voting, my proposal is this: Treat the all-star team starting lineups the same as the determination of the coaching staffs. A coach who coached the all-star team is not allowed to coach a second consecutive season. Make it this way: If a player has started in the all star game during one season, he is left off the ballot the subsequent season. This would allow the league to expose more fans to more players. That will lead to greater parity and increased league popularity. It's a very simple solution which I believe should be strongly considered.
In your press conference on February 15 prior to All-Star Saturday, you mentioned that you are "a fan of basketball" and want to see the game "played the right way." Your sentiments echo those with what I believe to be those of the great majority of fans. The issues I raise and changes I request are in an effort to fulfill those two sentiments. I wish to continue to be a fan of the NBA, but if the league continues to frequently allow the game to played in the wrong way, I honestly don't see how much longer I can be.
There were a couple of other issues from that press conference on which I would like to touch.
Increased broadcasting on non-cable channels. I was puzzled when you treated this as a non-issue. I know several people who do not have certain cable channels, including TNT, ESPN and certainly NBATV. I believe you are underestimating the number of people who do not have those channels. There are many who are stuck with the analog channels in their area. There are also many in my hometown of Portland who, if they don't have Comcast, are left out of watching several Trail Blazers games (the reporter from Houston asked about something similar in regards to the Rockets). Another issue here are the people who, in our current economy, have had to cut out certain luxuries in order to not only put food on the table, but make sure there is a table on which for them to put that food. Cable television is one of these luxuries which has found itself on part of America's chopping block. It may not be a huge number, but it is certainly significantly high enough for you to look at in a very serious manner. Remember, reaching the most people with the product is our goal, isn't it?
Sleeved jerseys. I have to be completely blunt on this: I am not in favor of sleeved jerseys. Through conversation, facebook and twitter feed (including retweets), I have not seen one single fan comment that they actually liked the sleeved jerseys. As a matter of fact, I've heard them being panned left, right, middle, up and down by all fans. I'm literally talking about probably over 2,000 separate comments (polls in a presidential election typically involve one-third of that number). I understand it may be a question of personal preference and I respect that your opinion is that of being in favor of them. My belief on this issue is that the sleeved jerseys are a first step in a higher goal to put advertising on players jerseys (sleeves seem to be a prime location of advertising space on jerseys). I am also not in favor of that. Sure, it could lead to a little bit more revenue. On the other hand, no major professional sport based in the United States, nor the NCAA, has a policy of advertising on uniforms. That is part of what makes sports in our country elite. Simply put, advertising on uniforms looks amateur. I simply don't believe that goal should be to put forth that perception. Sports in the United States are elite. Let's keep them appearing to be just that. Sleeved jerseys are frankly, in my opinion, hideous. Advertising on uniforms is tacky. I believe I've said my piece on that.
I will say I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding a new minimum age limit for players entering the NBA. There is no question that the longer amount of time a player plays in college or with his team overseas, the more he will mature. We both surely agree that the older a player is, the more mature he will become. Heck, I'm nearly 22 years old and I can tell you that I am more mature than I was a year ago, and a year ago I was more mature than the year before, and so on. It's not just players who are more mature; it's people in general. I take the Blazers' Damian Lillard as a prime example of that. Coming from a college like Weber St., had he been able to come out of college following his freshman year, I question whether he would ever have become as mature than he already has by having had attended college for four years. Though it's just the beginning of CJ McCollum's rookie season, I already can see the benefits of maturity in him having attended Lehigh for four years. I could also say the same of former Blazer Brandon Roy, who attended Washington for four years prior to entering the NBA. Any efforts you can make to extend a player's pre-NBA career are only going to make that player a better player. It will only help him, his team and the league in the long run. Believe me, I am completely behind you on that point.
I've already mentioned David Stern. He did a fine job of promoting the NBA. From a marketing standpoint, he did a tremendous job of expanding the popularity of the league. However, as I mentioned before, the way he went about it by promoting only large markets and superstars and through his officiating initiatives, has completely obliterated the integrity of the game of basketball. Fans wish to be treated to the highest form of entertainment. Despite denials and comments to the contrary, that is simply not happening. My own jury is still out on Stern's tenure as commissioner, but thus far, it has left me with a distinct bad taste.
So, when you say you don't necessarily want to change the way Stern did things, I think it is an absolute must that you do, in fact, make some serious changes. I believe you can turn Stern's lack of parity in the NBA into Silver's legacy of parity.
As you can see, I am disappointed in at least several aspects of the job done by your predecessor. Frankly, I am glad to see him step down.
I am ever the optimist; perhaps to a fault. I have been looking forward, in earnest, to the beginning of this next step in your career. I am hopeful you can silence mine and others skepticisms of Stern's work as the league's commissioner. Yes, I will be watching and it seems many others will be. I will be looking forward to the advancement you have planned for the league and the corrections you will make to the problems which already exist. From what I've seen in your interviews and your demeanor while pronouncing those oh so tricky second-round names during the draft (huge respect for your ability to do that!), you seem like a likable person. I really want to like this new era you will usher in for the NBA.
My only question is: will I like it?
Finally, I want to say that I welcome you as the leader of the National Basketball League. I know you have a lot of work ahead of you, so I will let you get to it.
Thank you for your attention and congratulations Commissioner Silver,
Kassandra
Commissioner Adam Silver,
Happy All-Star Weekend. I know this is a time for you and the National Basketball Association to showcase the league in several events, not the least of which is the 63rd annual All-Star Game. I know this is a busy weekend for you; being that it is your first in your current position. Be that as it may, I believe the words I write should be particular interest to you as you begin your tenure as commissioner of the NBA.
Please first allow me to introduce myself. My name is Kassandra. Originally from Portland, Oregon, I am a senior in college, about a quarter-and-a-half away from earning degrees in political science and American history. I also will complete the pre-law program which was set up through my counselor prior to my enrollment three-and-a-half years ago. As I mentioned, I am from Portland. As you may imagine, I am a longtime Trail Blazers fan. In fact, I have been watching and discussing my team and the NBA with my family (including my father and four athletically minded brothers) for nearly two decades. Social media has allowed me to talk with countless fans and I have written over 100 blogs on the former Blazers Blogger Network. Suffice to say, I consider myself very knowledgeable in regards to the Portland Trail Blazers and to the National Basketball Association.
It is with this background and knowledge that I would appreciate your attention as I discuss with you some issues regarding the NBA.
I believe parity -- or lack there of -- will always be an issue which will challenge, and even haunt at times, any professional sports league. I also believe that there is no sports league which fails to achieve unilateral parity as the NBA. This comes down to revenue, promotion, fair play and officiating.
Only someone shortsighted would not recognize that the NBA is a business. The need for parity in revenue across the league is paramount. I'm not telling you anything you don't already know here. It's my feeling that when striving for parity, this is the area in which the NBA is the strongest. Certainly, you wish each of the 30 franchise to make money. Obviously, that is what the owners wish as well. On this front, I would only suggest the revenue sharing model which is being used by the National Football League. I'm not so much going to talk more about this here as I will touch on it in my further comments.
The NBA does a tremendous job of promoting some teams. On the other hand, it does a horrendous job of promoting others. During the most-recently completed season, 2012-13, the broadcast partners announced their schedules prior to the season. The second-largest market team, the Los Angeles Lakers, were awarded with 27 nationally televised games. One of the smallest markets in the league, the Charlotte Bobcats, were awarded zero. As someone who wishes to be exposed to all 30 of the teams and all 450 players in the NBA, this is completely unacceptable. Would a game between the Kings and the Bucks not be as competitive as a game between the Heat and the Thunder? As a college student, League Pass for me at school is not a financial option (like the NBA, I have to spend my money wisely). Many others cannot purchase League Pass for other reasons. I recognize that the broadcast schedule was not by your personal arrangement. However, if you want parity (in addition to increased sales of merchandise), all teams need to be exposed to all NBA fans. Using the market models above, I have to ask the question: How will a connoisseur of NBA merchandise purchase a Kemba Walker jersey if they are not exposed to the Bobcats? Ensuring all NBA teams are exposed nationally to all NBA fans will only grow the appreciation of the entire league and, as illustrated, will lead to increased merchandise sales. That's more popularity and more revenue. I understand that to be your goal.
Fair play is a vague term. The direction in which I'm pointing with it is that all players and all teams must abide by the same guidelines; on and off the court. Specifically, I believe this comes down to league enforcement. When the league evaluates players for rule violations such as flopping, it needs to levy consistent fines/suspensions to each player. This means superstars and players from a large market must be forced to abide by the same guidelines as role players and those from smaller markets. However, this rule is not working from an enforcement standpoint. When I say it's not working, I am saying that it has not become the deterrent that it originally was meant to be. The NBA would be doing it's players, teams, owners and fans a huge service if it adopted FIBA's in-game rule of a technical foul when a player flops. It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out whether a player flopped on a particular play and it would serve as an immediate in-game punishment for conduct which really has no business on an NBA court. Instant replay already allows officials to examine the status of flagrant and clear path fouls. It would only be consistent to include flopping under the same umbrella of instant replay. Mind you, flopping is just one example of the category of fair play. I imagine, like myself, you can come up with many others.
When the word officiating is mentioned, we all know that is a huge can of worms. Let me prepare you in advance: I am about to open that can. This is an area in which I believe your predecessor completely failed. In my opinion (and that of countless others), David Stern used an unwritten rule to the officials to promote large market teams and superstars. I understand the NBA's line on this is denial. However, the results speak for themselves and they are loud and clear. When the great majority of championship winning teams are from large markets or involve superstars, it's not difficult to understand the fans' frustrations are justified.
I'm going to once more pick on the Lakers a little bit, as they are a team which has been considered to be the beneficiary of this atrocious officiating standard. Of the Lakers fans with whom I've conversed casually on the lack of parity in officiating, there is about a 50-50 split among their reactions. Half deny their team is not the beneficiary of favoritism of officiating. The other half freely admit that they get the calls, stating something to the extent of: "We get the calls, but we should because we're from L.A."
Large-market teams with superstars such as the Lakers have been repeatedly handed success via the league's line on officiating, as well as the officials themselves. This was done in order to promote the league. This involves Stern's promotion of the NBA from a marketing sense. From the standpoint of integrity for the game of basketball, Stern's marketing success was an ends which most definitely does not justify its means.
The other monstrosity in regards to officiating in the NBA is the clear bias of some of the officials themselves. After years of working as an official there are several who have developed a clear bias either for certain players or against other players. Denials of this can sound good in sound bites, but in reality, the denials fall on deaf ears. I'm going to cite the example of Rasheed Wallace from about 15 years ago. It was very well documented at the time that Wallace, who was leading the league in technical fouls, was cited for a number of technicals for what I might describe as "reputation technicals." This where, following a play, Wallace would be called for a technical for a confused look or merely shaking his head (not toward the officials, however). This is the bias of which I speak. Perhaps some of the officials, including some still working today, have just been around too long.
Regardless of whether you, I or others believe this to be true, this is a legitimate issue. If it is only by perception, then it is that perception which will continue to haunt the NBA until the league changes that perception. As I see it, this can be done in only one of two ways:
1. Complete, meaning 100 percent, transparency in the penalties to each and every official, each and every time such a penalty is imposed. The NBA, on its own website, announces when players receive penalties for flopping and other indiscretions. If an official makes a mistake, then the transparency of allowing the media or the fan to analyze which officials are receiving disciplinary action is not only appropriate, but it is absolutely necessary. Fines and suspensions to players -- and the announcement of those fines and suspensions -- are meant as a deterrent to the players of further indiscretions. The same should apply to officials. Should they not be further deterred from making biased and intentionally erroneous calls during a game? I believe the answer to this to be clear.
2. Replace all NBA officials with an independent cast of basketball officials, perhaps through FIBA or another organization tasked with fairness in sports. This would be independent of the NBA and could very well foster a new era of fairness in officiating. This would obviously be done by contract and, if the result is less than satisfactory, could be changed when the contract expires. The benefit of this is that you would have a fresh crop of officials to call things evenly from play to play, from quarter to quarter and from game to game. At this point, that is an absolute necessity for the NBA.
The only way to reverse the lack of parity in NBA officiating is to make one of these changes. In the least, it would show that you are committed to fixing the problem which the majority agrees exists. With that, I will close up that can of worms.
As this is All-Star Weekend, I'd like to take a moment to mention fan voting. With a scant few objections, fan voting for all-star selections, as well as honors such as "dunker of the night," is a massive failure. I recognize that this can be deemed as a way to involve fans and I get that. I believe involving fans is a great thing. However, when fans continue to vote in large market players and superstars who are not deserved of those starting spots, there is an issue. Let's face it, the larger the market, the more voters there are from that market to vote in their players. My personal opinion is that being selected by the opposing coaches in your conference is a much, much higher honor than being voted by fans in a popularity vote. Though I believe you will not eliminate fan voting, my proposal is this: Treat the all-star team starting lineups the same as the determination of the coaching staffs. A coach who coached the all-star team is not allowed to coach a second consecutive season. Make it this way: If a player has started in the all star game during one season, he is left off the ballot the subsequent season. This would allow the league to expose more fans to more players. That will lead to greater parity and increased league popularity. It's a very simple solution which I believe should be strongly considered.
In your press conference on February 15 prior to All-Star Saturday, you mentioned that you are "a fan of basketball" and want to see the game "played the right way." Your sentiments echo those with what I believe to be those of the great majority of fans. The issues I raise and changes I request are in an effort to fulfill those two sentiments. I wish to continue to be a fan of the NBA, but if the league continues to frequently allow the game to played in the wrong way, I honestly don't see how much longer I can be.
There were a couple of other issues from that press conference on which I would like to touch.
Increased broadcasting on non-cable channels. I was puzzled when you treated this as a non-issue. I know several people who do not have certain cable channels, including TNT, ESPN and certainly NBATV. I believe you are underestimating the number of people who do not have those channels. There are many who are stuck with the analog channels in their area. There are also many in my hometown of Portland who, if they don't have Comcast, are left out of watching several Trail Blazers games (the reporter from Houston asked about something similar in regards to the Rockets). Another issue here are the people who, in our current economy, have had to cut out certain luxuries in order to not only put food on the table, but make sure there is a table on which for them to put that food. Cable television is one of these luxuries which has found itself on part of America's chopping block. It may not be a huge number, but it is certainly significantly high enough for you to look at in a very serious manner. Remember, reaching the most people with the product is our goal, isn't it?
Sleeved jerseys. I have to be completely blunt on this: I am not in favor of sleeved jerseys. Through conversation, facebook and twitter feed (including retweets), I have not seen one single fan comment that they actually liked the sleeved jerseys. As a matter of fact, I've heard them being panned left, right, middle, up and down by all fans. I'm literally talking about probably over 2,000 separate comments (polls in a presidential election typically involve one-third of that number). I understand it may be a question of personal preference and I respect that your opinion is that of being in favor of them. My belief on this issue is that the sleeved jerseys are a first step in a higher goal to put advertising on players jerseys (sleeves seem to be a prime location of advertising space on jerseys). I am also not in favor of that. Sure, it could lead to a little bit more revenue. On the other hand, no major professional sport based in the United States, nor the NCAA, has a policy of advertising on uniforms. That is part of what makes sports in our country elite. Simply put, advertising on uniforms looks amateur. I simply don't believe that goal should be to put forth that perception. Sports in the United States are elite. Let's keep them appearing to be just that. Sleeved jerseys are frankly, in my opinion, hideous. Advertising on uniforms is tacky. I believe I've said my piece on that.
I will say I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding a new minimum age limit for players entering the NBA. There is no question that the longer amount of time a player plays in college or with his team overseas, the more he will mature. We both surely agree that the older a player is, the more mature he will become. Heck, I'm nearly 22 years old and I can tell you that I am more mature than I was a year ago, and a year ago I was more mature than the year before, and so on. It's not just players who are more mature; it's people in general. I take the Blazers' Damian Lillard as a prime example of that. Coming from a college like Weber St., had he been able to come out of college following his freshman year, I question whether he would ever have become as mature than he already has by having had attended college for four years. Though it's just the beginning of CJ McCollum's rookie season, I already can see the benefits of maturity in him having attended Lehigh for four years. I could also say the same of former Blazer Brandon Roy, who attended Washington for four years prior to entering the NBA. Any efforts you can make to extend a player's pre-NBA career are only going to make that player a better player. It will only help him, his team and the league in the long run. Believe me, I am completely behind you on that point.
I've already mentioned David Stern. He did a fine job of promoting the NBA. From a marketing standpoint, he did a tremendous job of expanding the popularity of the league. However, as I mentioned before, the way he went about it by promoting only large markets and superstars and through his officiating initiatives, has completely obliterated the integrity of the game of basketball. Fans wish to be treated to the highest form of entertainment. Despite denials and comments to the contrary, that is simply not happening. My own jury is still out on Stern's tenure as commissioner, but thus far, it has left me with a distinct bad taste.
So, when you say you don't necessarily want to change the way Stern did things, I think it is an absolute must that you do, in fact, make some serious changes. I believe you can turn Stern's lack of parity in the NBA into Silver's legacy of parity.
As you can see, I am disappointed in at least several aspects of the job done by your predecessor. Frankly, I am glad to see him step down.
I am ever the optimist; perhaps to a fault. I have been looking forward, in earnest, to the beginning of this next step in your career. I am hopeful you can silence mine and others skepticisms of Stern's work as the league's commissioner. Yes, I will be watching and it seems many others will be. I will be looking forward to the advancement you have planned for the league and the corrections you will make to the problems which already exist. From what I've seen in your interviews and your demeanor while pronouncing those oh so tricky second-round names during the draft (huge respect for your ability to do that!), you seem like a likable person. I really want to like this new era you will usher in for the NBA.
My only question is: will I like it?
Finally, I want to say that I welcome you as the leader of the National Basketball League. I know you have a lot of work ahead of you, so I will let you get to it.
Thank you for your attention and congratulations Commissioner Silver,
Kassandra
Graphic courtesy of David.